24 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

And yet they have no problem with the players who go to the halfway point and simulate a putt or the guys who spent 30 seconds behind the hole, below the hole and behind the ball and then plumb bob. The dumb thing about plumb bobbing is the putters don't hang vertical. 

I watch Dustin Johnson read a putt. He read it from the hole to the ball. Then he read it from the low side, about halfway. Then he read it from behind the ball. I am thinking, I got him beat in time and accuracy ;) 

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 0:42 PM, Hardspoon said:

I think it's the same reason you see basketball announcers (or, before Moneyball, baseball announcers) making ignorant comments about "analytics" and how "the numbers are only part of the story".  In short: these guys are old.  They think the way things were in their day is the only right way...

Yup. Resistance to something new. Even worse if the new thing is "technical," and the old thing is "artistic."

There are so many myths regarding putting that it gets comical. On my course, there is visible on the horizon a water tower that is about 15 miles from the course. Several people will say "every putt on the back 9 breaks toward the water tower."

How on earth could something like this be true, on anything other than an engineered surface? I feel the same way about people invoking the influence of a water hazard on some other hole. Are you telling me it's impossible to make a pile of dirt and grow grass on it, contoured in a way that it breaks AWAY from any water hazard you choose? (I realize there are facts of nature, drainage being one of them, and that there is _some_ truth to many of these adages in many places....but that's a far cry from them being rules.)

So people cling to these clichés as fact or use a "method" like plumb bobbing without even understanding what the alleged mechanism of the method IS, yet the won't even listen to or try something objective like "try to sense the break using your sense of balance....your feet."