Increased Randomness on Putting

[iacas]

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?

[billchao]

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.

[Vinsk]

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. 

[Hohjoe]

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

 

[iacas]

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.

[Hohjoe]

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.

[billchao]

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.

[Wanzo]

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.  

[phillyk]

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. 

[iacas]

BTW, there is a right answer here.

[phillyk]

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? 

[Keep It Simple]

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.

[Shindig]

(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.

[saevel25]

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. 

[GolfLug]

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 September 20, 2021 by GolfLug

[georgep]

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.

[Phil McGleno]

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.

[klineka]

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.