Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 1962 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hi,

recently I've played two rounds on normal greens (as good as they get where I live) and two on slow greens (just topdressed and aereated).
On the two rounds on "good" greens, I putted terribly. 35 putts and 3-putts each of the rounds. Both length and direction were off.
On the "bad" greens, I had 29-30 putts and no 3-putts. 

Now, is this just me or a "law of nature"?
 


Posted

To me, it's just about what I'm used to.

My old home course had the slowest greens in town. I putted ok on them, but looked stupid anytime I played somewhere else.

The new home is closer to average and the putter is traveling better. Unfortunately everything else has gone to hell.

 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

My question.. What was the difference in your lengths of putts.    On the days you had 35 putts did you have more GIR and longer putts?  On the days you had 29-30 putts were your misses just off of the green so your initial putts were closer to the hole?

I play many different courses and see all different green speeds.   It makes a big difference to take the time to get the green speed down before you play.    

From the land of perpetual cloudiness.   I'm Denny

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

@dennyjones

That's a very good and valid question, and I did have very good GIRs the rounds I putted badly.

But it doesn't account for the bad putting. Only two of the six 3-putts could be explained by being far from the pin (or difficult pin position). And I did have some long putts the rounds I putted well (in spite of bad GIRs - my long game was really off those rounds).


  • Moderator
Posted

I generally putt better on slower greens - maybe the faster greens highlight our flaws and so, as you put it, it’s the “law of nature” that we putt better on slower greens. For those who are better with the flat stick, I would guess it’s the opposite as faster greens afford a smaller stroke with less opportunity for technical mistakes?

Driver: :callaway: Rogue ST  /  Woods: :tmade: Stealth 5W / Hybrid: :tmade: Stealth 25* / Irons: :ping: i500’s /  Wedges: :edel: 54*, 58*; Putter: :scotty_cameron: Futura 5  Ball: image.png Vero X1

 

 -Jonny

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted

Counting putts is not the best way to know if you putted well or poorly.

  • Like 2

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
25 minutes ago, iacas said:

Counting putts is not the best way to know if you putted well or poorly.

Obviously the goal is to make the putts, but I definitely recommend understand that statement...the results are always a reflection of the process/execution.  
 

With that, what criteria do you use? How do you tell tour team to evaluate their own putting?

Driver: :callaway: Rogue ST  /  Woods: :tmade: Stealth 5W / Hybrid: :tmade: Stealth 25* / Irons: :ping: i500’s /  Wedges: :edel: 54*, 58*; Putter: :scotty_cameron: Futura 5  Ball: image.png Vero X1

 

 -Jonny

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
31 minutes ago, woodzie264 said:

With that, what criteria do you use? How do you tell tour team to evaluate their own putting?

SG:Putting.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Something most people don't take into account when playing on faster/slower greens is the amount of break that a given similar putt has. Faster greens have a lower friction coefficient, so gravity gets to play its role a little (sometimes a lot) more than normal. If you find yourself missing low-side on fast greens, this tip could save you loads. If it's a distance thing, you just have to work on it pre-round and should be ok.

  • :titleist: 917 D2 9.5o EvenFlow blue shaft    :titleist: 917 F2 15o EvenFlow blue shaft    
  • :titleist: 818 H2 19o EvenFlow blue shaft 
  • :titleist: 712 AP2 4-PW
  • :vokey: 52/8o SM6 RAW    56/14o SM6 Chrome      60/4o SM6 Chrome
  • :ping: Anser Sigma G putter
  • :snell: MTB-Black Balls
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
9 hours ago, iacas said:

SG:Putting.

that’s makes total sense in competitive play with others, and I can see where that is a better indicator of putting performance. 

But what about the recreational golfer? I think that’s why the OP (and I think a lot of us) assume it comes down to number of putts...which I guess is SG putting against par

Driver: :callaway: Rogue ST  /  Woods: :tmade: Stealth 5W / Hybrid: :tmade: Stealth 25* / Irons: :ping: i500’s /  Wedges: :edel: 54*, 58*; Putter: :scotty_cameron: Futura 5  Ball: image.png Vero X1

 

 -Jonny

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
4 hours ago, woodzie264 said:

But what about the recreational golfer? I think that’s why the OP (and I think a lot of us) assume it comes down to number of putts...which I guess is SG putting against par

The same.

Again, a guy who has 32 putts from an average first putt distance of 40' likely putted better than a guy who took 28 putts from an average first putt distance of 15'.

You can use PGA Tour-level SG:Putting data to figure out how well you putted, especially if you're comparing one round of yours to another round of yours.

And all you have to note is: the distance of your first putt and how many putts it took to complete the hole.

Or use this:


Use this tool to calculate the strokes gained metric for any round of golf. Track your putting improvement.

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 2

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
23 minutes ago, iacas said:

The same.

Again, a guy who has 32 putts from an average first putt distance of 40' likely putted better than a guy who took 28 putts from an average first putt distance of 15'.

You can use PGA Tour-level SG:Putting data to figure out how well you putted, especially if you're comparing one round of yours to another round of yours.

And all you have to note is: the distance of your first putt and how many putts it took to complete the hole.

Or use this:


Use this tool to calculate the strokes gained metric for any round of golf. Track your...

 

thank you sir! That’s cool

 

Driver: :callaway: Rogue ST  /  Woods: :tmade: Stealth 5W / Hybrid: :tmade: Stealth 25* / Irons: :ping: i500’s /  Wedges: :edel: 54*, 58*; Putter: :scotty_cameron: Futura 5  Ball: image.png Vero X1

 

 -Jonny

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 1962 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • My next golf trip will probably be a short one, but I’m really looking forward to it. I’m thinking of staying relatively close, picking a spot with a few solid courses and making a long weekend out of it. For me, the best golf trips are about good courses, relaxed vibes, and time away with friends.
    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.