When to go into lag mode for putting?

[DShepley]

12 minutes ago, Luv2kruz said:

This isn't about getting to scratch. This is about enabling high handicappers to be better than they were yesterday. They can change technical skill, mindset, strategy and other variables. The question is at what point does each of those factors play a bigger role in improvement.

Fix the cause.  It's likely if you ask the high handicapper his intent on a 20 footer, he'll tell you he is just trying to get it close....then what?  Teach them how to be rock solid inside 5 feet.  The high handicapper can't reliably make a 3 foot putt so encouraging a lag mentality is not likely going to show improvement.  It all comes down to 'why' they three putt.  Focus on the technical skill, then encourage the proper mindset.

Edited May 18, 2021 by DShepley

[Luv2kruz]

14 minutes ago, DShepley said:

Fix the cause.  It's likely if you ask the high handicapper his intent on a 20 footer, he'll tell you he is just trying to get it close....then what?  Teach them how to be rock solid inside 5 feet.  The high handicapper can't reliably make a 3 foot putt so encouraging a lag mentality is not likely going to show improvement.  It all comes down to 'why' they three putt.  Focus on the technical skill, then encourage the proper mindset.

Appreciate your input. But at this point, Id like to here others viewpoints and their supporting evidence.

[jmkenn0]

16 hours ago, DShepley said:

Ask the best putters you know if they are trying to make every putt and report back.  If you miss a 5 foot circle short by 6", you have a 5'6" putt.  If you miss a 4" circle short by 6", you have a 6" putt.  Confidence plays a huge roll in putting and if you are focusing on just getting it close rather than making a putt, you have made a consciously choice to miss.  Eventually, if you become less and less confident, the distance at which you switch into 'hit it close' mode becomes smaller and smaller, until you are like my friend...a great ball striker who was scared of 12 foot putts.  Read the break to make the putt, stand over it and confidently try to make it, (possibly on a conservative line), and your misses will be much better.  Tiger, Jack, Rory, DJ, all make long putts once in a while and it isn't by accident, or that they treated the moment differently, it's because they were TRYING to make it.

 

FYI this is not how geometry works.  You miss a 5 foot circle, assuming the 5 is the diameter (because who talks about a 5 foot circle as a radius?), by 6", you actually just have a 3' putt.

 

I'd say the key to getting putts down in 2 when the initial putt is greater than 40 feet is being really good at putts less than 6 feet for your second putt.  If you focus more on putting inside 10 feet, "lag" putting tends to take care of itself.  

[SNIPERBBB]

23 minutes ago, Luv2kruz said:

This isn't about getting to scratch. This is about enabling high handicappers to be better than they were yesterday. They can change technical skill, mindset, strategy and other variables. The question is at what point does each of those factors play a bigger role in improvement.

High cappers generally aren't where they are because they make poor tactical or strategic mistakes. It's mostly technical ability that they lack. You can cover technical weaknesses with strategy and tactics in some cases. Putting is much more technical and you can't really cover weakness there with strategy. Best you could do is teach them a form of aimpoint so they can tell which way the putt breaks and tell them to aim we away from where they feel the slope going.

[DShepley]

18 minutes ago, jmkenn0 said:

 

FYI this is not how geometry works.  You miss a 5 foot circle, assuming the 5 is the diameter (because who talks about a 5 foot circle as a radius?), by 6", you actually just have a 3' putt.

 

I'd say the key to getting putts down in 2 when the initial putt is greater than 40 feet is being really good at putts less than 6 feet for your second putt.  If you focus more on putting inside 10 feet, "lag" putting tends to take care of itself.  

You are right...bad math for sure.  The point is aim small / miss small

[SNIPERBBB]

20 minutes ago, jmkenn0 said:

 

(because who talks about a 5 foot circle as a radius?)

You'd be surprised. Most of my day is listening/watching shows that find those people and mock them all. 

[Luv2kruz]

19 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

High cappers generally aren't where they are because they make poor tactical or strategic mistakes. It's mostly technical ability that they lack. You can cover technical weaknesses with strategy and tactics in some cases. Putting is much more technical and you can't really cover weakness there with strategy.

Thats the most logical arguement ive heard so far. So to articulate that in another way, at 10 feet technical skill is the more dominant factor regardless of intent. Changing intent may produce marginal results quickly, but changing technical skill produces better results but takes longer. This is analogous to short game improvments can improve scores quickly, but long game improvment yield larger gains, but takes longer.

 

I would have to say though, as putts get longer, mindset plays a larger role in outcomes. They just may never trump technical skills. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Luv2kruz

[glk]

Anecdotal but here it is.   Faxon and reed

 

https://golficity.com/faxon-shares-key-best-putting-pga-history/

 

 

https://golf.com/news/patrick-reeds-5-secrets-to-more-birdies/

 

[SNIPERBBB]

Longer putts would require a tactic change depending on the putt, but I'd never suggest a mindset change. Instead of looking at a spot outside the hole  for most putts inside 20', I'll look a spot past the hole for uphill spots or spots short of the hole for downhill putts.

[glk]

 

13 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Longer putts would require a tactic change depending on the putt, but I'd never suggest a mindset change. Instead of looking at a spot outside the hole  for most putts inside 20', I'll look a spot past the hole for uphill spots or spots short of the hole for downhill putts.

Broadie's analysis is that tour pro have targets beyond the hole for putts out to 30 (give or take dependent on the slope) but never have a target short of the hole - downhill putts the target is further past the hole than uphill putts.

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by glk

[Luv2kruz]

4 minutes ago, glk said:

Anecdotal but here it is.   Faxon and reed

 

https://golficity.com/faxon-shares-key-best-putting-pga-history/

 

 

https://golf.com/news/patrick-reeds-5-secrets-to-more-birdies/

 

At least you're providing some evidence, even if anecdotal. That being said, their technical skill at short putts allows them to adopt the make everything mindset. High handicappers dont have this. This was recognized by the Stickney article when he states "these players have a buffer that the 90s shooter doesnt". So does the make everything mindset have application to high handicappers? Most of the experts that ive read contend that it doesnt, and would actually do more harm than good. 

[SNIPERBBB]

10 minutes ago, glk said:

 

Broadie's analysis is that tour pro have targets beyond the hole for putts out to 30 (give or take dependent on the slope) but never have a target short of the hole - downhill putts the target is further past the hole than uphill putts.

 

 

 

Is that referring to where you want the ball to end up or the speed? When I have a severe sidehill or downhill putt, I'm picking a spot short to where I think if I roll the ball at die speed to that spot, gravity will take the ball to the hole. The uphill spot to me where where I think the effective length of the putt is. If if it's a 30ftb but if the putt was level would require 35ft speed, I pick a spot 5ft speed

[Krt22]

3 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

If you're putting from 50 feet and you're as good as the best players in the world, you can probably reasonably expect that you can get your speed down to within around 5-6 feet of your target. If you hit 100 putts, it will look like a bell curve around your target (distance wise). If you're aiming for 12-18" past the hole, then your putts are going to wind up between 18" short and 4'6" past. You're going to hole maybe 2-3% of them. All those putts that go more than 3 feet past are risked three putts. If you make your target the hole, then you'll wind up between 3 feet short and 3 feet past. You're not likely to make fewer of them, because the longer ones will have a larger capture size at the hole and that will offset the additional putts that wind up short. If you make it your goal to never be short, then the long end of the range is going to be 6 feet past. That's really bringing three putts into range. Also not wise. 

 

Ideally if you want to know what your target should be, you should figure out how big that range of the bell curve is from each distance. Then your target can be such that if the target is past the hole, then your long end shouldn't be more than about 3 feet long. So from 15 feet, where your range is probably around 2 feet long, it's fine to aim for 18" past the hole because you'll be between 0.5 and 2.5 feet past. But downhill putts spread out that range and uphill putts narrow it down. That's why on a fast downhill putt you should aim for dead weight, potentially even from 10 feet or so. On an uphill putt you can be more aggressive because it tightens up the range and now you can aim past the hole on a 25 foot putt.

 

 

 

This is all very valid, I guess the caveat is intent vs  expected outcome relative to putt length. The OP is advocating accepting a 3ft radius from as short as 15-20ft, which I don't think is a good strategy at all, accepting a 3ft radius from 20ft is simply not good.  In those cases you are right, the center of your dispersion circle is just past the hole, but it is also smaller than 3ft in radius, such that you don't get beyond 3ft from the hole.

 

If we are talking 50 ft, realistically the center of your dispersion circle is at the hole and anything inside of 3ft is a good leave. But I will maintain your goal at the very least should be getting it to the hole, if your goal is anywhere "inside 3ft", you can easily shift the center of your dispersion circle short of the hole, such that a short miss is well outside of that 3ft. It may sound like semantics, but intent vs outcome expectation is important. For me the term "just lag it close" implies it won't ever get to the hole.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Krt22
edit

[glk]

9 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Is that referring to where you want the ball to end up or the speed? When I have a severe sidehill or downhill putt, I'm picking a spot short to where I think if I roll the ball at die speed to that spot, gravity will take the ball to the hole. The uphill spot to me where where I think the effective length of the putt is. If if it's a 30ftb but if the putt was level would require 35ft speed, I pick a spot 5ft speed

Target.    This is based on thousands and thousands of actual putts and where they finished.     He reversed engineered this from the scatter pattern of missed putts, ie the middle of the pattern was the intended target.       

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by glk

[glk]

21 minutes ago, Luv2kruz said:

At least you're providing some evidence, even if anecdotal. That being said, their technical skill at short putts allows them to adopt the make everything mindset. High handicappers dont have this. This was recognized by the Stickney article when he states "these players have a buffer that the 90s shooter doesnt". So does the make everything mindset have application to high handicappers? Most of the experts that ive read contend that it doesnt, and would actually do more harm than good. 

Which from what I have read of your posts is pretty much all you've provided.    Did I miss the posts where you provided data?    And this post is yet another example of ancedotal itself.    Or even a definition of what you mean by lag putting mode - without a definition I'm not certain what entire discussion is about?

Edited May 18, 2021 by glk

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, Luv2kruz said:

This isn't about getting to scratch. This is about enabling high handicappers to be better than they were yesterday. They can change technical skill, mindset, strategy and other variables. The question is at what point does each of those factors play a bigger role in improvement.

 

Ok, I think the issue is that we're starting to get into semantics about what we're talking about. And I suspect a lot of the discussion is because people are using terms VERY differently.

 

Since you are OP, can you define the difference in intent as you perceive it between "make it" and "lag mode" strategy? By that I mean what are you defining as the difference in aim point, in distance target, etc? How are they functionally different from a strategy standpoint analyzing and stroking the putt?

 

48 minutes ago, Luv2kruz said:

Thats the most logical arguement ive heard so far. So to articulate that in another way, at 10 feet technical skill is the more dominant factor regardless of intent. Changing intent may produce marginal results quickly, but changing technical skill produces better results but takes longer. This is analogous to short game improvments can improve scores quickly, but long game improvment yield larger gains, but takes longer.

 

I would have to say though, as putts get longer, mindset plays a larger role in outcomes. They just may never trump technical skills. 

 

I think this is important, but it's a completely different discussion. All the strategy in the world can't help you if you can't consistently start a ball on your target line and do so at a consistent speed. 

 

I'm a high cap and most of my putting "practice work" that I'm doing right now is just a modified ruler drill where I'm focusing on hitting the ball straight and pure. The only real change I've made to putting "strategy" of late is pacing off every one of my longer putts so I have a much more inherent idea of distance than just eyeballing it. 

 

However, my strategy is to make every putt. When I line up a putt, I'm looking at the line, the break, the elevation, and I'm setting my line and speed with intent to put the ball IN the hole, not near the hole.

 

The only difference for me in strategy between a short putt and a long putt is this: on a 3-footer, I'm trying to hit the ball 4-4.5 feet. On a 30-footer, I'm trying to hit the ball 30 feet.

 

Both are intent to make the putt, but knowing both my technical and green-reading limitations, I want the center of my dispersion to be hole-high rather than beyond the hole on long putts because that gives me the best chance of 2-putting.

[Luv2kruz]

11 minutes ago, glk said:

Which from what I have read of your posts is pretty much all you've provided.    Did I miss the posts where you provided data?    And this post is yet another example of ancedotal itself.    Or even a definition of what you mean by lag putting mode - without a definition I'm not certain what entire discussion is about?

My first post had the data I was looking at. The post where I linked to Stickney's article with his data and that supported my first post. And I gave my definition of lag putting on the second page. So ya, you missed quite a bit.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Luv2kruz

[Krt22]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

I haven't read Broadie, so I'm going to have to ask for your read on what he says. I can take your stated interpretation two ways:

1. Broadie says that your intent should always be to reach the hole and then some. Therefore if you look at your dispersion on long putts and it's 33% short of the hole and 66% past the hole, you should be hitting the ball harder until you are almost 0% short of the hole, because those 33% have zero chance to go in.
2. Broadie says that your aim point on all putts should be distance control where your target is 12-18" beyond the hole, and that's true whether it's a 3-footer or a 38-footer. Due to dispersion, that means you'll never leave a 3-footer short, but you may leave some percentage of 38-footers short, and that's an acceptable miss, but you should be biased to leaving them long rather than short. 

If he's saying #2, I think that's fair. You're slightly shifting your dispersion center point to bias yourself to make a few more putts, without shifting it so much that you never leave a long putt short. 

 

If he's saying #1, I'd be inclined to disagree. 

Same response as above. The OP is advocating the 3ft circle from as short as 15-20ft, which is not a good strategy to practice since those are still makeable and where 3putts should be minimal. Putt length matters, so it isn't quite a universal target when it comes to where the center of your dispersion circle should be. As your dispersion pattern grows with longer putts, the center should shift closer to the hole, but your intent should still never be to leave a putt short. 

[glk]

8 minutes ago, Luv2kruz said:

My first post had the data I was looking at. The post where I linked to Stickney's article with his data and that supported my first post. And I gave my definition of lag putting on the second page. So ya, you missed quite a bit.

Is this your definition from page 2?

 

And that's what lag putting means to me. An overriding focus on distance control. I still hope, believe and intend for the putt to go in, but I am prioritizing distance control over everything else.

 

 

 

 

[Luv2kruz]

1 minute ago, glk said:

Is this your definition from page 2?

 

And that's what lag putting means to me. An overriding focus on distance control. I still hope, believe and intend for the putt to go in, but I am prioritizing distance control over everything else.

 

 

 

 

Yes.

[glk]

3 minutes ago, Luv2kruz said:

Yes.

So i see nothing incongruent with that definition and having a make every putt attitude.   

 

To me, given the amount of effort and time tour pro spend reading the green and aiming their putter outside of just the shortest of putts, I can't imagine their intent being anything other than making the putt - irregardless of what they may said in an article or sound bite.      A single putt could be the different between having your card or not.

Edited May 18, 2021 by glk

[glk]

Dup.

Edited May 18, 2021 by glk

[DShepley]

12 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Same response as above. The OP is advocating the 3ft circle from as short as 15-20ft, which is not a good strategy to practice since those are still makeable and where 3putts should be minimal. Putt length matters, so it isn't quite a universal target when it comes to where the center of your dispersion circle should be. As your dispersion pattern grows with longer putts, the center should shift closer to the hole, but your intent should still never be to leave a putt short. 

From as short as 6 feet for a high handicapper

[Ty_Webb]

6 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Same response as above. The OP is advocating the 3ft circle from as short as 15-20ft, which is not a good strategy to practice since those are still makeable and where 3putts should be minimal. Putt length matters, so it isn't quite a universal target when it comes to where the center of your dispersion circle should be. As your dispersion pattern grows with longer putts, the center should shift closer to the hole, but your intent should still never be to leave a putt short. 

 

I entirely agree that the 3 foot circle is not really a good goal. For a start, 3 feet away from your target from 15 feet is not a very good putt. 3 feet away from 80 feet is really good. I'm reading OP's question as where should your target change from past the hole to on top of the hole. And I think it's right around where you hit around 3 feet of accuracy. 10% error level is a pretty good estimate of a "decent" player's range of error. That means from 100 yards you shouldn't finish more than 30 feet from your target (note that the majority of shots you'd hope would end up well inside that). From 30 feet that means 3 feet of error, so for a decent player 30 feet is around the point where you should be trying to hit it dead weight. Die it in the hole if you like. That's on the basis that three feet is around the point where "should hole it almost all the time" starts to move to "could miss it". If your putting skill level is bad, you might have a 20% margin of error, in which case, 3 feet is as close as you can reliably hit it from 15 feet away. Combine that with 18 inches being where you move from should hole it to could miss it and that's where you start talking about optimal strategy being hitting it dead weight from 10 feet away. 

[DShepley]

10 minutes ago, glk said:

So i see nothing incongruent with that definition and having a make every putt attitude.   

 

To me, given the amount of effort and time tour pro spend reading the green and aiming their putter outside of just the shortest of putts, I can't imagine their intent being anything other than making the putt - irregardless of what they may said in an article or sound bite.      A single putt could be the different between having your card or not.

Which is why I say you never go into lag mode.  The lag is a result, not an intent.

[SNIPERBBB]

Do an experiment, find or make a stimpmeter.

 

 Find a severely breaking putt. Set up the stimpmeter and try different lines and find out what happens when you miss under the apex vs over the apex. You'll see why you can't just focus on speed and ignore break. 

Edited May 18, 2021 by SNIPERBBB

[Luv2kruz]

26 minutes ago, glk said:

So i see nothing incongruent with that definition and having a make every putt attitude.   

 

To me, given the amount of effort and time tour pro spend reading the green and aiming their putter outside of just the shortest of putts, I can't imagine their intent being anything other than making the putt - irregardless of what they may said in an article or sound bite.      A single putt could be the different between having your card or not.

But does that mindset apply to the 90s shooter? The question in the OP is whether shortening the distance (from the often suggested 20 to 25ft) where distance control becomes the overriding concern for those high handicap golfers? They dont seem to be able to balance the variables well enough to avoid three putting more than they one putt.

[Luv2kruz]

18 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Do an experiment, find or make a stimpmeter.

 

 Find a severely breaking putt. Set up the stimpmeter and try different lines and find out what happens when you miss under the apex vs over the apex. You'll see why you can't just focus on speed and ignore break. 

Nobody is ignoring break. Just prioritzing distance control. 

[DShepley]

8 minutes ago, Luv2kruz said:

Nobody is ignoring break. Just prioritzing distance control. 

Every putt prioritizes distance control, they aren't exclusive.  You match break and speed.  You set up to a target, (based on reading break), and react to that.  If you only focus on break, you will sacrifice speed, ("fell in love with the line"), if your only focus is speed, you will likely sacrifice your line.  It's feel, you have to fix the root cause of why distance control suffers and that is a technical issue not a mindset of 'just hit it closer'....trust me, all of those players who blast it by or leave it way short aren't trying to do that, they are already trying to hit it close.  They have an underlying issue with the stroke that creates the bigger miss.

Edited May 18, 2021 by DShepley

[SNIPERBBB]

Then we're just playing semantics. The only debate now from your OP Is that trying to make a long putt leads to three putts if you miss the first putt.