Jump to content
IGNORED

Increased Randomness on Putting


Skill vs. Luck in Putting  

40 members have voted

  1. 1. Read the question in the first post and answer here. Vote BEFORE you read any replies.

    • The gap between the good and bad putters would be narrowed.
      23
    • The gap between the good and bad putters would be increased.
      7
    • The gap between the good and bad putters would remain the same.
      10


Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

I may move this later, but for now, here is fine.

Assume a perfectly smooth putting surface. One on which putts that are hit the proper speed and on the proper line go in, and one on which missed putts miss.

Skill would rule the day — the best putters would be the best putters by some margin over the worst putters.

Here's the question: if you made the greens bumpier, so that a ball could be directed a little left or a little right each time it hit a little bump (and the longer the putt, the more of these little misdirections could happen), would that narrow or increase the gap (or keep it the same) between the good putters and the bad putters? Why? What's your reasoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

The gap gets narrower. Uncontrollable variables come into play. Luck, if you will. Being the best putter matters less is a ball on the proper line can hit something and deflect off the line and a ball on the wrong line can hit something and deflect onto the correct line.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I voted the gap remains the same. The skilled putter will still get good breaks and bad ones, and the poor putter will still get good breaks and bad ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Just now, Hohjoe said:

I think the gap stays the same. Good or bad putters will still be good or bad putters.

The gap can shrink (or grow) and "good or bad putters will still be good or bad putters." The poll doesn't ask if the gap "flips" or anything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

The gap can shrink (or grow) and "good or bad putters will still be good or bad putters." The poll doesn't ask if the gap "flips" or anything.

I think the gap stays the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Moderator
30 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I voted the gap remains the same. The skilled putter will still get good breaks and bad ones, and the poor putter will still get good breaks and bad ones. 

While both groups are going to get (presumably) equal shares of good and bad luck, I think randomness disproportionately affects different skill levels. Good putters will be more likely to have good putts deflected off line than bad putters because they hit more putts on good lines. The inverse should also be true - bad putters are more likely to get good breaks on bad lines because they hit more of them. It’s simply a numbers thing.

Good putters don’t benefit as much from good luck as bad players do because they hit fewer putts off line, and bad putters aren’t hurt by bad luck as much as good players are because they hit fewer putts on good lines.

Note that I’m specifically referring to putts that hole for simplicity’s sake.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I think it widens.  Bad putters have more bad putts that get even worse.  Overall dispersion gets bigger for both,  but increases the bad putter’s number by more because it started larger.  

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

Remains basically the same. Flat surface hit dead center with good putt has same approximately same probability of jumping offline or back on as a putt hit 3 inches right and jumping the same. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
20 minutes ago, billchao said:

Note that I’m specifically referring to putts that hole for simplicity’s sake.

I feel like the question asks us to account for all the above. Forget a hole altogether. How does a ball roll along a green? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I voted narrowed.  I took 2 extremes (unicorns); player A, a perfect player who never misses a putt on a perfectly smooth putting surface and player B who never makes a putt on a perfectly smooth putting surface.  Add bumpiness to the green in a way that randomly affects the result of the putt and player A can only get a worse result (missed putts) and player B only a better result (made putts).   Thus narrowing the gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


(Written without reading anyone else's replies)

I voted the difference would increase.  Here's my line of thinking.  The good putter would have been in or close on the ideal surface;  so while the bumps can keep some out, it can also push some that were going to be close into the cup.  Luck at least has a chance to be at least as beneficial as it is hurtful.  By contrast, the poor putters can't really benefit much from luck -- sure, it might cause a ball to finish closer to the cup, but they aren't missing by two bumps instead of one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Obviously, if a person made 100% of them on perfect greens, then on substandard greens they would miss putts. So, it would never benefit them. 

Let's say a golfer makes 50% of putts on perfect greens, and on bad greens 50% of putts made were deflected away, and 50% of putts missed were deflected in, then their made % would not change. 

I don't know we could assume that the green would cause 50% of the putts to miss for the golfer who made 100% on perfect greens, but it would cause a certain % of their putts to miss. 

I would say that it hurts the better putters more and maybe doesn't effect bad putters as much. A horrible putter it may never help 😛. If you're not even close for a deflection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Gap remains same. The good putters adapt just like they adapt for slow and fast greens on different courses. They will ram them home to hold the line better through the bumps on short putts and lag putt more defensively to have easier 2nd putts. I had slight inclination to say the gap would even increase.

BTW, the luck factor helping/hurting either group to any significant level is BS. 

Edited by GolfLug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

I said that the gap narrows. Good putters still putt the ball on good lines but randomness now creates some misses that wouldn’t occur on the perfect green. Poorer putters now occasionally get a good break and the ball falls in. 
 

The worst putters, who would never make a putt on the perfect green, now might sink the occasional putt (assuming the randomness is extreme enough). But the best putters, who would never miss on the perfect green, now miss with some (random) regularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The results of the poll do not seem to say the same thing as what people are writing.

The gap narrows because randomness always reduces the effects of skill.—A good putter will have more putts deflected away from the hole than a bad putter—And a bad putter will have more putts deflected toward the hole than a good putter.

That is a net win for the bad putter twice-Though the number of bad putts that get deflected in is going to be small.

Many of the answers here have been upsetting on a personal level.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

9 hours ago, Wanzo said:

I think it widens.  Bad putters have more bad putts that get even worse.  Overall dispersion gets bigger for both,  but increases the bad putter’s number by more because it started larger.  

Why are you only assuming that the bumps hurt the bad putter? I could rephrase your part in bold to say "Bad putters have more bad putts that get even better"

2 hours ago, georgep said:

But the best putters, who would never miss on the perfect green, now miss with some (random) regularity.

The best putters wouldn't miss on the perfect green when hitting the proper line and speed, which isn't always the case. Even the best putters wouldn't always hit the proper line/speed to make the ball go in, so it's possible (and probable IMO) that at some point even the best putter would gain the benefit of the bumps by having a slightly offline putt be bumped back onto the proper line and into the hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • @DaveP043 is pretty knowledgeable with this stuff.
    • Has anyone played this format? It's kind of like a Stableford in that it has points for eagles, birdies, pars, etc., but it's different. For an explanation click here. In our league we normally play weekly individual stroke play contests with handicaps but the thought was it would be a fun mid-season break to have some sort of team competition as well so I'm trying to set up something like this for next year. The question I have though is how should we handle things if the number of guys who want to play is not divisible by four and we end up with one or more threesomes? Someone suggested that it shouldn't matter since it's each individual player's handicap that determines the team handicap which is what is used to set the team's quota. I'm thinking there would need to be some sort of reduction to the threesome's team quota that would have to be factored in or else they would be at a disadvantage.  Does anyone have experience with team tournaments with a mix of threesomes and foursomes?          
    • This is an absolutely horrible take. That is not anywhere close to the best way to determine the best team in college football. All that does is rewards schools for playing in weak conferences. Not all conferences are equal. The top team in multiple conferences is often worse than the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th best team in other conferences. There are at least 6-7+ teams in both the Big Ten and the SEC alone that would be favored heavily over whoever the conference champ is from the Mountain West, the MAC, etc. Based on your logic, one of each of the two teams like SDSU/Utah State in the Mountain West, Kent State/Northern Illinois in the MAC, and Appalachian State/Coastal Carolina in the Sun Belt would be in the playoff, and with only 1 at large bid for a non-conference champ, that means a number of very good football teams would be left out of the playoffs entirely including potential teams like Alabama, OSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Iowa, Penn State, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Oklahoma State.  Please explain why a team like Utah State, Kent State, or Appalachian State would deserve to be in the playoff over any of those schools I just listed. Simply "Winning your conference championship" is not enough for me, not when there is such disparity between conferences.  How does your method prove who the best team in college football is for a given season?
    • Awesome, @Shindig. For those interested, I'm likely closing this out at the end of the month. LIST OF GEARS-Heads: @Vinsk💰 @boogielicious 💰 @Darkfrog 💰 @Chris Brooks 💰 @cipher 💰 @ChetlovesMer 💰 @billchao ✅💰 @saevel25  ✅💰 @GolfLug ✅ @BradSomrak @coachjimsc @bjfox10 ✅💰 Local Player DR Local Player BT Local Player ST @Shindig
    • I don't believe them at all. It's a stain on all of them, and particularly Kane/Toews, etc. One could forgive them for what they did 11 years ago if they show true signs of attrition and regret and growth, but now they're just liars.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. david7w5
      david7w5
      (49 years old)
    2. Jmwest76
      Jmwest76
      (45 years old)
    3. Mikael Detterberg
      Mikael Detterberg
      (39 years old)
    4. NEhomer
      NEhomer
      (61 years old)
    5. RangeGolfer
      RangeGolfer
      (40 years old)

×
×
  • 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.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...