Let's talk 3 jacks!... who's fault is it?

[PracticeSwinger]

4 minutes ago, Anthony Stevens said:

I can't make the math work just using SG data. Lagging from 33' to 6' is not great, and it seems to make common sense that this first putt is where "most of the strokes were lost", as opposed to missing the remaining 6' putt, but the SG numbers can't seem to quantify it.

 

Maybe a way to look at it is:

PGA Tour three putt percentage from 33' = ~5%

PGA Tour two putt percentage from 6' = ~34%

 

So you are much more likely to 2-putt from 6' than 3-putt from 33'. Maybe there's some way to massage those numbers into some quantifiable "how bad was the first putt" number.

Exactly why I created the thread... can't wrap my head around the fact that SG theory says it's the second putt that was the worse one

[Krt22]

5 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

Exactly why I created the thread... can't wrap my head around the fact that SG theory says it's the second putt that was the worse one

The theory only says that using the math you created, which uses a bit of circular reasoning.  I really don't think the traditional method accounts for first putt length, only the outcome. Perhaps email Broadie and ask what he thinks?

[PracticeSwinger]

16 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

I don't know how much you can realistically improve that. I view speed as something I can basically always control and if I have a good feel for the speed of the greens I'm not going to be worried about 3 putting outside very tricky putts across slopes or if I get on the wrong side of the hole and the greens are very fast. Otherwise I'm expecting most to be basically tap ins or very simple clean ups, and if I miss the short one my thought is usually that it was a poor lag unless I make a terrible stroke and miss one around 3 feet. But it's one of the stronger parts of my game so I probably do take it for granted at times. 

I do feel that way too, I 3jack on average exactly once a round this year... so again, not too shabby but not elite... and I can say I'm quite confident that I won't 3putt when faced with 'normal' conditions even on lag ones... and believe me as a 5ish cap, my limited practice time should and will be devoted to ball striking... just wanted to see if our gut feeling was 'wrong' by thinking [and if I miss the short one my thought is usually that it was a poor lag]... 

[PracticeSwinger]

2 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

The theory only says that using the math you created, which uses a bit of circular reasoning.  I really don't think the traditional method accounts for first putt length, only the outcome. Perhaps email Broadie and ask what he thinks?

Very good remark and I'll do that... otherwise, not only have I created a method with circular reasoning - but I've started a thread that is becoming a circular one also

[TLUBulldogGolf]

20 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

I do feel that way too, I 3jack on average exactly once a round this year... so again, not too shabby but not elite... and I can say I'm quite confident that I won't 3putt when faced with 'normal' conditions even on lag ones... and believe me as a 5ish cap, my limited practice time should and will be devoted to ball striking... just wanted to see if our gut feeling was 'wrong' by thinking [and if I miss the short one my thought is usually that it was a poor lag]... 

 

I honestly don't track anything all that closely, just overall putts/fwys/greens. I like to understand the SG theory but haven't spent the time to put it into practice, so I couldn't begin to tell you anything about distance breakdowns, but given the ceiling on 6 foot make rate I don't think that feeling is wrong. Some days you will make more, some less, I just try to make a good stroke on those putts. My feeling is having fewer putts from that range is going to save me more in the long term. 

 

This feels very similar to short game vs long game debate. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

38 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

Exactly why I created the thread... can't wrap my head around the fact that SG theory says it's the second putt that was the worse one

 

SG also treats all 33 footers as equal, it's not really meant to be broken down like this. 

[Krt22]

3 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

Very good remark and I'll do that... otherwise, not only have I created a method with circular reasoning - but I've started a thread that is becoming a circular one also

I very much could be wrong! The math obviously works out (it has to given it is quite simple), it just is odd how you can arrive at the same baseline data point in two different ways.

[PracticeSwinger]

11 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I very much could be wrong! The math obviously works out (it has to given it is quite simple), it just is odd how you can arrive at the same baseline data point in two different ways.

Email sent to Broadie... I'll let you guys know if I ever get a reply

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, MtlJayMan said:

 

 

Here comes the nerdy one (I'm 6'4, 220 by the way haha) that tracks everything...

all putts over30ft -> inside 5ft : 85% on the nose...

all putts over30ft -> inside 3ft : 58%

... we might be on to something here!

My 3 putt avoidance for 30 feet and greater is 25%.  30 feet down to 20 feet  is 26.32% 

Total all is 9.52 %. 

I track it all too.  And just have no context for what’s good or bad.  Or how bad is bad.    

Edited October 4, 2022 by bladehunter

[95124hacker]

Didn’t read the whole thread but wouldn’t lagging to 3 ft vs 6 ft improve your make % on putt #2? I think 6 ft make % even on Tour is not as high as most would assume, maybe 50% IIRC.

[TLUBulldogGolf]

18 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

My 3 putt avoidance for 30 feet and greater is 25%.  30 feet down to 20 feet  is 26.32% 

Total all is 9.52 %. 

I track it all too.  And just have no context for what’s good or bad.  Or how bad is bad.    

Does this mean you 3 putt 25% of the time outside 30 feet? Tour average outside 25’ is under 10%. Overall 3 putt avoidance was led by Cam Smith at 1.61%, tour as a whole was at 3%.

For a reference around scratch, I sit at 5% which after reading this thread and looking at stats is something I need to look at. I don’t have distance breakdowns though.

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, Krt22 said:

You must play with awful putters lol. I don't keep my own stats anymore, but I can confidently say I am likely north of 85% (maybe  even 90%) lagging it inside 5ft from 30ft away. 

 

Since I am confident in my lag putting skill, I spend most of my time working on 4-8ft. 

Play on very hard ( as in difficult) small greens.   Finding a 30 foot putt it isn’t easy.  When you do it’s usually over two ridges and severe up or down hill.  

[bladehunter]

4 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

Does this mean you 3 putt 25% of the time outside 30 feet? Tour average outside 25’ is under 10%. Overall 3 putt avoidance was led by Cam Smith at 1.61%, tour as a whole was at 3%.

For a reference around scratch, I sit at 5% which after reading this thread and looking at stats is something I need to look at. I don’t have distance breakdowns though.

I assume so … 

 

here’s pga tour leaderboard on 25 feet. Looks like Joel Dahmen bringing up last at 30 %. 
 

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.147.html 

Edited October 4, 2022 by bladehunter

[RichieHunt]

A few things:

1) Just to be clear, that's not how they calculate SG - Putting on the PGA Tour.  The way it's calculated is taking the field average of the distance of the first putt versus how many putts the player takes.  So if you have a 10-foot putt on your 1st putt the average strokes to the hole is 1.626.  If you 2-putt by knocking the first one 6-feet past the hole and making the comebacker, they just take 1.626 - 2 putts = -0.374 strokes gained for that hole instead of calculating the 6-foot comebacker.  Although that's not really the point of this thread, but readers may get confused on how the Tour calculates SG - Putting

 

2)  I don't know if I would say that missing the 6-foot putt was the 'more costly shot' in your scenario.  I don't have scratch data on putting, but for the Tour the average strokes to the hole from 33-feet is 2.001 strokes and from 6-feet it's 1.357 strokes.  If you were to make the *33-foot* putt, you'd increase your strokes gained by +1.001 strokes.  Conversely, if you make the 6-footer you gain +0.357 strokes vs. a miss (assuming 2-putts from 6-feet) that would lose -0.643.  I guess it would depend on the standard deviation of strokes to the hole from 33-feet vs. 6-feet.

 

But the main reason why 6-footers matter more is that golfers are more likely have more 6-footers than 33-footers.  My guess is also that 6-footers have a larger standard deviation and likely good putters are much more likely to make 6-footers than bad putters and the deviation in strokes to the hole from 33-feet is likely much smaller(most people are probably just 2-putting from that distance).

 

3)  I can't remember who said it (it may have been Mark Broadie or Lou Stagner), but they found that 'good putts' from outside 15-feet have a fractional remaining length of 10% or better.  15% would be closer to the average and 20% would be closer to poor.  Meaning that if you had a 33-foot putt, a good leave would be to 3.3 feet.  So in reality, the first putt going to 6-feet was the bigger issue.

 

4)  Unless that was a very fast putt where even the best in the world would struggle to keep that putt much closer than 6-feet away.  And thus the blame for the 3-putt (at least the increasd probability of 3-putting) would go to whatever caused you to get to 33-feet on the first putt to begin with.  This could be deemed a 'ballstriking 3-putt.'  

And it's not always the approach shot to blame.  If you're playing a long par-4 and you miss the fairway and are left with a 170 yard approach from the rough that you hit to 33-feet, the tee shot was more to blame for increasing your likelihood of 3-putting because hitting a 170-yard shot from the rough to 33-feet and on the green is a pretty good shot.

 

5) And sometimes you just have a really difficult 33-foot putt that even the best tour pros would struggle to not 3-putt.  Sometimes the green is just difficult and the design of the hole is difficult to hit it close and you're basically left with a long (30+ foot putt) to a difficult green.

The 7th hole at my old club was a good example.  Arnold Palmer even referred to it once as the worst designed green he had ever played.  It had a ridge that ran thru the middle of the green almost in a diagonal pattern and was a 190 yard par-3.  You were likely left with a long putt if you hit the green and between the green speeds and the green design, even Ben Crenshaw would have a difficult time not 3-putting from certain locations.

 

 

 

 

RH

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 minute ago, bladehunter said:

I assume so … 

 

here’s pga tour leaderboard on 25 feet. Looks like Joel Dahmen bringing up last at 30 %. 

I would look at last years stats, it’s much more representative than a 2 tournament at most sample size. 

[Krt22]

2 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Play on very hard ( as in difficult) small greens.   Finding a 30 foot putt it isn’t easy.  When you do it’s usually over two ridges and severe up or down hill.  

Outlier course. Those misses are more about missing in the wrong place than putting skill

3 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I assume so … 

 

here’s pga tour leaderboard on 25 feet. Looks like Joel Dahmen bringing up last at 30 %. 
 

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.147.html 

Look at 2022, not enough data points for 2023 to draw those concolusions

[PracticeSwinger]

1 hour ago, Krt22 said:

The theory only says that using the math you created, which uses a bit of circular reasoning.  I really don't think the traditional method accounts for first putt length, only the outcome. Perhaps email Broadie and ask what he thinks?

 

Just to let you know guys - here is the reply I got from Broadie, on SG putting :

 

The PGA Tour explanation was given just above by @RichieHunt

[PracticeSwinger]

24 minutes ago, RichieHunt said:

A few things:

1) Just to be clear, that's not how they calculate SG - Putting on the PGA Tour.  The way it's calculated is taking the field average of the distance of the first putt versus how many putts the player takes.  So if you have a 10-foot putt on your 1st putt the average strokes to the hole is 1.626.  If you 2-putt by knocking the first one 6-feet past the hole and making the comebacker, they just take 1.626 - 2 putts = -0.374 strokes gained for that hole instead of calculating the 6-foot comebacker.  Although that's not really the point of this thread, but readers may get confused on how the Tour calculates SG - Putting

 

2)  I don't know if I would say that missing the 6-foot putt was the 'more costly shot' in your scenario.  I don't have scratch data on putting, but for the Tour the average strokes to the hole from 33-feet is 2.001 strokes and from 6-feet it's 1.357 strokes.  If you were to make the *33-foot* putt, you'd increase your strokes gained by +1.001 strokes.  Conversely, if you make the 6-footer you gain +0.357 strokes vs. a miss (assuming 2-putts from 6-feet) that would lose -0.643.  I guess it would depend on the standard deviation of strokes to the hole from 33-feet vs. 6-feet.

 

But the main reason why 6-footers matter more is that golfers are more likely have more 6-footers than 33-footers.  My guess is also that 6-footers have a larger standard deviation and likely good putters are much more likely to make 6-footers than bad putters and the deviation in strokes to the hole from 33-feet is likely much smaller(most people are probably just 2-putting from that distance).

Yes and yes!... its why the SG from those 6-footers is high (make vs miss), with the disparity between good putters vs bad putters from that distance (compared to good/bad putters from 33ftbased on make rate from there, if they don't compiled to distance left for the 2nd putt)... even on Tour there's a good gap... so, is it a chicken-egg kinda problem?... and a cause/effect one - the plot thickens...

[Krt22]

16 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

 

Just to let you know guys - here is the reply I got from Broadie, on SG putting :

 

The PGA Tour explanation was given just above by @RichieHunt

Strange. I agree it is a big difference, yet it is all counted the same in terms of total strokes lost. Perhaps at the tour level, that type of "miss" with a putt is a statistical outlier, so there isn't much need to track it. 

[PracticeSwinger]

26 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Strange. I agree it is a big difference, yet it is all counted the same in terms of total strokes lost. Perhaps at the tour level, that type of "miss" with a putt is a statistical outlier, so there isn't much need to track it. 

Agree - anyhow, just wanted to pass along Broadie's reply... and I'll focus on getting better at both ends of the spectrum for 3-putt avoidance!

[bladehunter]

3 hours ago, Krt22 said:

Outlier course. Those misses are more about missing in the wrong place than putting skill

Look at 2022, not enough data points for 2023 to draw those concolusions

Duh. Lol I missed the year.  I hadn’t even considered that a new season started.  

[RichieHunt]

The distance range that correlates the strongest to SG-Putting is from 4-12 feet.  I believe Lou Stagner discovered that as the PGATour.com does not provide 1-foot increment make %'s outside of 10-feet (outside 10-feet they provide as small as 5-foot increments, i.e. 10-15 feet, 15-20 feet, 20-25 feet).

 

When I looked at one specific distance that correlated the most to SG - Putting I found it was 4-1/2 feet.  

 

Unpacking some of the things the data is telling me:

 

1) The longer the putt the more 'luck' is involved in sinking the putt.  Once you get outside 12-feet luck (how the ball is affected by the green, wind, etc) starts to overtake skill (i.e. green reading and being able to hit the putt with the line and speed to make the putt). 

 

2)  While the best putters may not make more putts from outside 12-feet, they are consistently missing those putts by a smaller margin (credit other research done by Lou Stagner)

 

3) 4-1/2 feet is likely the distance that has the threshold of requiring the least amount of luck but the most amount of skill.  Even at that short of a distance, if you're a poor green reader, you're going to miss a lot of those putts.  If  you struggle with speed and line you're going to miss a lot of those putts.

 

With an 11-footer, somebody that struggles with speed can still make an 11-foot putt vs. the golfer that has superior speed/touch can hit a darn good putt but still miss because luck is starting to play a larger factor when it comes to making that putt.

 

 

 

 

RH

[PracticeSwinger]

21 minutes ago, RichieHunt said:

The distance range that correlates the strongest to SG-Putting is from 4-12 feet.  I believe Lou Stagner discovered that as the PGATour.com does not provide 1-foot increment make %'s outside of 10-feet (outside 10-feet they provide as small as 5-foot increments, i.e. 10-15 feet, 15-20 feet, 20-25 feet).

 

When I looked at one specific distance that correlated the most to SG - Putting I found it was 4-1/2 feet.  

 

3) 4-1/2 feet is likely the distance that has the threshold of requiring the least amount of luck but the most amount of skill.  Even at that short of a distance, if you're a poor green reader, you're going to miss a lot of those putts.  If  you struggle with speed and line you're going to miss a lot of those putts.

 

 

That complete post is golden and was exactly what I was looking for when starting this thread... is of great help to focus on practice for the short and long term... all else being equal, basically;

• make sure that you devote a bit of time on speed control for mid-longer-ish distances - in order to consistently miss those by smaller and smaller margins (and as an aside, this will increase make rate % a tad since the hole has a better chance of getting in the way, even though this is smallish and involve luck)
• first and foremost - devote a lot of your practice time to make sure you are a tremendous putter from short range 4-6 feet... as this is where : 1- frequency of putts is the biggest and 2- make rate dispersion between good/bad putters is the widest

These are surely not ground breaking - but definitely shed some light on the 3-jacks 'suspects' between the first and second putts... if you had to choose : make the 'confidence' circle wider, rather than become a great lagger to a smallish circle... 

Edited October 5, 2022 by MtlJayMan

[tthomasgolfer605]

I never understood the 3 foot circle thing. I don't care if it's a 90 foot putt, I'm trying to hole it. 

[Krt22]

2 hours ago, RichieHunt said:

 

 

1) The longer the putt the more 'luck' is involved in sinking the putt.  Once you get outside 12-feet luck (how the ball is affected by the green, wind, etc) starts to overtake skill (i.e. green reading and being able to hit the putt with the line and speed to make the putt). 

 

There is one crazy poster on here that didn't believe this stance. He dug in HARD and said every missed putt can be attributed to lack of skill lol. 

[Trippels]

The putting stats seem to suggest it's beneficial to practice making all putts from about 3 feet. Since such consistency is possible and even prevalent among pros. Then from 6 feet and on there's not much point trying to practice for a high make percentage since it's essentially impossible to consistently make them. Rather the focus from medium to long putts should be to get them close consistently. In practice getting your dispersion as small and centered about the hole as possible. Then you'll inevitably make more of them as well since the hole take up a larger percentage of your dispersion area

Ideally your dispersion circle would be under 3 feet in diameter, to "guarantee" a 2 putt.

However, from what sort of distance is this realistic? And what percentage of putts from various lengths finish inside 3 feet for pros?

Knowing that you could make a more minimalist and effective putting practice routine right?

How should distance control practice be set up to get 80% of the benefit from 20% of the work?

 

From 10 feet I would guess you should be able to get 10 out of 10 putts to finish within 3 feet if you're a good putter. Any closer than 3 feet isn't really very important if you can't possibly make 10 feet putts consistently, and you make 3 feet putt almost as easily as 1 foot putts. Decreasing dispersion further would just increase your make percentage slightly probably.

But what about from 15 or 20 feet? How many out of 10 do pros get within 3 feet? Since pros are the closest measure to what is humanly possible.

What sort of distance is the return on invested time too low for dedicated practice?

[larrybud]

On 10/3/2022 at 6:34 PM, Krt22 said:

Once you are on the putting green there isn't much more to decompose, like I said you can at best 1 putt, so there isn't anything else to gain by calculating each putt.

 

From your math.

 

3putts from 33ft = -0.84 and 2putts from 6ft = -0.55 implies 33ft -> 6ft = -0.29... 6ft miss = -0.55... thus the 2nd one was 'more costly' on that 33ft 3jacks)

 

Let's say you putt from 33ft to 6ft and call it -.29 lost per your calculations. If you 1 putt from there, you gain back .45, which leaves you a composite +.16 

 

Let's say you putt from 33ft to 1ft. Using the same math you used based on 3 putts, 3putts from 33ft is -.84, 2 putts from 1 ft is -.91, that leaves you +0.07. Lets say you 1 putt instead, well you gained 0.09, which leaves you the same composite +.16

 

So second putt length doesn't matter using your math above since you are using baseline values based off 2-putting 

 

He's comparing the SG of the first putt to the 2nd putt, which is what you're doing as well. 

Think of it this way. If you leave a 33 ft putt 6 feet away, do you think that's a better or worse first putt than if you leave it 1 foot away? That's what he's trying to measure.

[PracticeSwinger]

51 minutes ago, Trippels said:

The putting stats seem to suggest it's beneficial to practice making all putts from about 3 feet. Since such consistency is possible and even prevalent among pros. Then from 6 feet and on there's not much point trying to practice for a high make percentage since it's essentially impossible to consistently make them. Rather the focus from medium to long putts should be to get them close consistently. In practice getting your dispersion as small and centered about the hole as possible. Then you'll inevitably make more of them as well since the hole take up a larger percentage of your dispersion area

Ideally your dispersion circle would be under 3 feet in diameter, to "guarantee" a 2 putt.

However, from what sort of distance is this realistic? And what percentage of putts from various lengths finish inside 3 feet for pros?

Knowing that you could make a more minimalist and effective putting practice routine right?

How should distance control practice be set up to get 80% of the benefit from 20% of the work?

 

From 10 feet I would guess you should be able to get 10 out of 10 putts to finish within 3 feet if you're a good putter. Any closer than 3 feet isn't really very important if you can't possibly make 10 feet putts consistently, and you make 3 feet putt almost as easily as 1 foot putts. Decreasing dispersion further would just increase your make percentage slightly probably.

But what about from 15 or 20 feet? How many out of 10 do pros get within 3 feet? Since pros are the closest measure to what is humanly possible.

What sort of distance is the return on invested time too low for dedicated practice?

 

Nerdy guy to the rescue again... and based on my own game (statistically insignificant for sure)

 

These is a clear gap in being able to get it inside 3ft versus get it inside 6ft once the putt is in the 30s footers (and even a tad bigger once it gets to 40+)... 61% vs 87%; thus some work there for sure

 

Also, my make rate from 3ft is 93% and from 6ft it's 49% (not inside of this, but at that marker - since I didn't want to miggle in all tap ins)... so a 44% gap in make rate between these 2 distances...

 

Combine these two and you can really see the importance of becoming a better lag guy... but, all of this is related to 3 putts per round of 30+ ft... is there a lot to gain from this?... I don't know

 

Meanwhile - would it be wiser to try and up my 49% make rate from 6ft... since I get between 4 to 6 putts of these per round?... I don't know

 

... I'm surely better off working on ball striking

[Trippels]

7 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

 

Nerdy guy to the rescue again... and based on my own game (statistically insignificant for sure)

 

These is a clear gap in being able to get it inside 3ft versus get it inside 6ft once the putt is in the 30s footers (and even a tad bigger once it gets to 40+)... 61% vs 87%; thus some work there for sure

 

Also, my make rate from 3ft is 93% and from 6ft it's 49% (not inside of this, but at that marker - since I didn't want to miggle in all tap ins)... so a 44% gap in make rate between these 2 distances...

 

Combine these two and you can really see the importance of becoming a better lag guy... but, all of this is related to 3 putts per round of 30+ ft... is there a lot to gain from this?... I don't know

 

Meanwhile - would it be wiser to try and up my 49% make rate from 6ft... since I get between 4 to 6 putts of these per round?... I don't know

 

... I'm surely better off working on ball striking

Better ballstriking and better lag putting would reduce length of first putts and second putts respectively, both reducing the number of 6 foot putts needed. And, since making more 6 foot putts is in part a question of better speed controll, then I would guess practicing them directly wouldn't be a great overall focus. More of an intermediate step in overall in a distance control practice Routine. 

Assuming you're capable of starting a ball online and not horrendous at green reading. 

Don't have the mathematical proof on this though 

[PracticeSwinger]

1 minute ago, Trippels said:

Better ballstriking and better lag putting would reduce length of first putts and second putts respectively, both reducing the number of 6 foot putts needed. And, since making more 6 foot putts is in part a question of better speed controll, then I would guess practicing them directly wouldn't be a great overall focus. More of an intermediate step in overall in a distance control practice Routine. 

Assuming you're capable of starting a ball online and not horrendous at green reading. 

Don't have the mathematical proof on this though 

Agree completely... it's clear that better golf is always a combo of getting a tad better in every aspect of the game... was just looking to discuss on 3jacks and if we weren't 'brainwashed' into default golf instruction - it happened because : bad lag putt leaving me a 4.5 footer to save it... while the SG data suggested that it was missing that 4.5 footer that left you behind your peers... 'more' than the first putt