I was trying to draw a diagram but I couldn't figure out how to do it. For example, if you have a 3 foot putt that breaks such that a putt at 6 inches past the hole would need to start on a line one inch above the lip to hit center cup.
- If you hit your line, how close to do you have to be to 6 inches to still make the putt? Anybody know this?
- If you miss your line with the correct speed, we know you have a target that's 3.8" wide.
- From those two, can you draw a diagram showing the space where, absent a hole, the ball would stop, and with a hole the ball would fall in the cup? I.e., the target area that would result in a made putt.
Then do the same thing for a firm putt, which would basically look like a long skinny cone extending from the hole. I guess it would sort of slant a bit because of the break.
I imagine you'd have a long skinny cone, a shorter fatter cone. One covers more area than the other. Whichever that is, would be the strategy that maximizes your odds of hitting the putt, if you remove green reading, confidence, preference, etc from the equation.
Originally Posted by saevel25
Yes i am assuming this, but its true that if you hit it 3' past, that you could hit it shorter or longer than 3'. But the problem with that is, if you under hit it lets say by a foot, 2.5'. Your hole size went from 1.4" to 1.75" in diameter.
Right, that's my point. The margin of error is 2 dimensional. I suggest that it might be reasonable to give up .17" in lateral margin of error, to gain 12.0" in depth margin of error. (I'm using your numbers, which I think are off and make my point look better) I further suggest, that if a person tends to miss short putts because he gets the speed wrong more often than he misses his intended line (we're not talking mis-reads), that person is probably better off hitting it firm.
Originally Posted by saevel25
Yes, but to same firm is overall more confident than softer, is false. There is a misconception that a soft putt isn't a confident stroke.
This is where we are. We agree on facts, and reach different conclusions. We agree that some feel more confident with a more firm stroke, some do not. From that, I conclude that people may reasonably differ on their approach. You come to the conclusion that everyone else is wrong.
And to me, this is sort of a side point. I take issue with the idea that widening the hole is the only factor that should be considered in determining what speed maximizes the margin of error given the correct read. I just mentioned this because its another benefit that people have mentioned of putting firm. Another would be that you're removing the break. If you're looking at a putt and you can't really tell if its left edge or 2 inches outside, you can hit it firm to an inch inside the left edge. If you hit your intended line, the ball isn't going to miss left and if you miss low--a firm 3 foot put breaking 3+ inches--you've misread the break pretty badly and its likely that a soft putt 2 inches left would have missed low too.
Originally Posted by Paradox
No one is saying that "firm is wrong" per se...whats wrong is that hitting a putt firm somehow makes the putt easier. Its just the opposite.... you have less room to miss.
Only if you define "room to miss" as lateral margin of error.
And for what its worth, it may be that lateral error is more important for some reason, or that I am over estimating the margin or error on depth. My point is that saying "soft is better because it makes the hole bigger" is good enough. That's like saying its better to build a baseball team by spending all your money on batters because that will maximize the runs you score. There's another dimension to the equation. It may be that one is more important than the other, or larger or smaller than the other, but simply repeating "soft makes the hole bigger" over and over again doesn't get you to the conclusion that soft results in more holed putts.