Can Putting Distance Control Be More Systematic?

[Bucky1031]

I didnt mean to hijack the thread😔

sorry about that.

 

[woodzie264]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

Hockey. Lacrosse.

True, but I’m not that coordinated. My point was, I don’t have to look at my hand to throw a paper ball in a trash can because the object being launched/propelled is attached to me whereas the golf ball is not. 

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, woodzie264 said:

True, but I’m not that coordinated. My point was, I don’t have to look at my hand to throw a paper ball in a trash can because the object being launched/propelled is attached to me whereas the golf ball is not. 

Which is why I named other sports where… you don't look at the thing being thrown while also not having direct contact with that thing.

You shoot a hockey puck* by looking at the goal, not at the puck. And there's a stick in the way, too.

* (Sometimes on a one-timer you look at the puck, but for wristers, etc. you're looking at the goal or target. Ditto for passes.)

[Ty_Webb]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

Which is why I named other sports where… you don't look at the thing being thrown while also not having direct contact with that thing.

You shoot a hockey puck* by looking at the goal, not at the puck. And there's a stick in the way, too.

* (Sometimes on a one-timer you look at the puck, but for wristers, etc. you're looking at the goal or target. Ditto for passes.)

But for those you already have contact between the stick and the ball/puck right? How many people hit a tennis serve looking at where they want the ball to go and not looking at the ball?

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

But for those you already have contact between the stick and the ball/puck right?

The point was that those sports are similar to golf because:

• there's something between your hands and the object (puck, ball)
• you know where the object is, either because it's in your pocket or on your stick.

27 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

How many people hit a tennis serve looking at where they want the ball to go and not looking at the ball?

That ball is moving. The golf ball is not. You know where the golf ball is (second bullet point above).

[Ty_Webb]

Then this: 

 

 

This ball is not moving. He knows where it is. He's using his foot to kick it and not a club, but that should make it easier not harder. He's looking at the ball because it's most important that he strikes the right part of the ball with the right part of his foot. 

But in any case, I'm not arguing against heads up putting - I try it from time to time and especially do it on the shorter putts for me. I'm just saying it's fairly unusual. 

[snapfade]

On 2/28/2024 at 12:10 PM, iacas said:

That's 4'0" to 4'11". They make > 86% of their actual four-footers.

The PGA Tour finally added a little thing, and their 4' mark is:

Their 5' mark is 82.11%, which aligns with what Lou said.

Even if you take that linearly, (92.6 + 82.11) / 2 = 87.4%. It's not quite linear, so actual PGA Tour make rate from 4' is almost 90%.

One make in two attempts, yes. Because you're not 5 for 10 or something from all those distances.

Then you either three-putt fairly frequently or something is off, because those don't add up, as @Ty_Webb explains.

I'm not sure you're really inputting the distances of putts accurately.

But anyway…

Current Avg. Holes Per 3 Putt is 9.3

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Then this:

 

There’s also nothing between his foot and the ball. You failed to match up with literally half of the bullet points

I’ve played soccer. The precise point on which you contact the ball matters on a penalty kick. A lot of the time when you’re playing you aren’t looking at the ball because you know where it is. PKs are a special case.

---

I’m not even sure you are arguing against what you think you’re arguing against. There’s validity to the idea that looking at the hole when putting is a valid way to go. It is inaccurate to say that we never look at the target when there’s something between us and the object. Hence my original suggestion of hockey and lacrosse.

[billchao]

2 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

But for those you already have contact between the stick and the ball/puck right?

Not necessarily, no. Slap shots and snap shots aren’t performed with the puck in contact with the blade.

[MK4]

On 2/26/2024 at 10:53 AM, Ty_Webb said:

He's got all the way up to 100+ feet calibrated. But then he does all sorts of calculations on the fly, so he says things like "it's 41 feet, but it's 2% uphill, so that's playing 74 feet. 74 feet is hands to right hip pocket"

I started using this method about two years ago for lag putts and it has been tremendously helpful for me.  I have an Exputt, so that helps with practice at home, but any sim (or Puttist) would work - there are even some apps that can do it.  Basically, on the course, (1) determine length of lag putt, (2) adjust for uphill/downhill %, (3) adjust for stimp (which is determined on practice green), and then you know the putter stroke length.

I have poor eyesight, so lag putting was previously a weakness for me, but now is a strength.  Admittedly, this method is pretty weird and isn't for everyone.

FWIW, I only calibrate up to 50 feet, but I should lengthen that since I use this method for Texas wedge/fringe putts, which are often 50+ feet after adjustment/calibration.  

[Ty_Webb]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

There’s also nothing between his foot and the ball. You failed to match up with literally half of the bullet points

I’ve played soccer. The precise point on which you contact the ball matters on a penalty kick. A lot of the time when you’re playing you aren’t looking at the ball because you know where it is. PKs are a special case.

---

I’m not even sure you are arguing against what you think you’re arguing against. There’s validity to the idea that looking at the hole when putting is a valid way to go. It is inaccurate to say that we never look at the target when there’s something between us and the object. Hence my original suggestion of hockey and lacrosse.

I know he's got nothing between his foot and the ball - that's why I acknowledged that, but do you think that makes it easier or harder to make contact with the ball where you want to? With lacrosse, the ball is in your net when you throw it, so there is nothing to gain by looking at the ball. Same thing with the hockey push. With the free kick, you have to make contact with the ball to then kick it somewhere. So your preliminary target is the ball. Secondary target is the goal. With a golf swing you have to make contact with the ball to hit it somewhere, so your preliminary target is the ball. Secondary target (with your putter at least) is the hole. 

So your example of hockey and lacrosse have something between the ball and you similar to golf, but also have the ball already in contact with that something, not like golf. 

My example of a free kick in soccer, you don't have anything between the ball and you, which is not like golf, but the ball is not in contact with anything, like golf. So we're both one for two.

25 minutes ago, billchao said:

Not necessarily, no. Slap shots and snap shots aren’t performed with the puck in contact with the blade.

I have never played ice hockey at least, so I don't know, but slap shots are they looking at the puck or where they want it to go?

15 minutes ago, MK4 said:

I started using this method about two years ago for lag putts and it has been tremendously helpful for me.  I have an Exputt, so that helps with practice at home, but any sim (or Puttist) would work - there are even some apps that can do it.  Basically, on the course, (1) determine length of lag putt, (2) adjust for uphill/downhill %, (3) adjust for stimp (which is determined on practice green), and then you know the putter stroke length.

I have poor eyesight, so lag putting was previously a weakness for me, but now is a strength.  Admittedly, this method is pretty weird and isn't for everyone.

FWIW, I only calibrate up to 50 feet, but I should lengthen that since I use this method for Texas wedge/fringe putts, which are often 50+ feet after adjustment/calibration.  

How do you do step 2? The adjust for uphill/downhill %?

[MK4]

29 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

How do you do step 2? The adjust for uphill/downhill %?

So, it's a two-part determination: (a) figure out the %; and then (b) adjust the putt to what a flat putt would be.  I only do this for putts over ~20 feet.  

To do (a) and get the %, you can either use aimpoint or a green reading book.  I use a book because I play the same course a lot, but after a couple rounds, you get a pretty good feel for what 2% is, what 3% is, etc. and don't need to use the book.  If it's a long, undulating putt with varying %, then I average the %.  

To do (b), multiply putt length by the % times 11.  Essentially, for a 3% slope, multiply the putt length by 33%, for a 4% slope, multiply by 44%, etc.  And then, add/subtract depending on if it's uphill or downhill.  So, a 30 footer that's downhill 2% is like a flat 23 footer.  I figured out part (b) from a Geoff Mangum article, confirmed it with an old Dave Pelz book and from hearing Bryson discuss it, and then tested it on a couple different sims (GC4 and Exputt). 

This is all based on 11 stimp, and the numbers change slightly for other stimps (10, 12, 13).  The change becomes more impactful for longer putts with bigger slopes and for bigger stimp disparities (going from 11 to 13).  

It seems like a lot, but it only takes a few seconds once you get the hang of it.  The numbers don't have to be perfect (e.g., 2% vs 2.5%), but it gives a ballpark idea of equivalent flat putt length.  The calculation becomes trickier on long putts (50+ feet), with a big slope (3% or more), through 3+ feet of fringe.  For those putts, the math has to be more accurate because less margin for error. 

EDIT: for (b), you can also have a chart written down on a card or something, and then bring it on the course.  I have a friend (bad at math) who does that.  

Edited March 1 by MK4

[iacas]

34 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

So your example of hockey and lacrosse have something between the ball and you similar to golf, but also have the ball already in contact with that something, not like golf. 

• Not necessarily in hockey, no.
• The ball isn’t moving anywhere and the putting stroke is small. It’s okay that you’re not touching the ball the whole time.

35 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

My example of a free kick in soccer, you don't have anything between the ball and you, which is not like golf, but the ball is not in contact with anything, like golf. So we're both one for two.

🤣

Sure thing pal.

---

At the end of the day, heads up putting is perfectly valid.

I sometimes do it to warm up so I can see all of the ball’s roll.

[Ty_Webb]

42 minutes ago, iacas said:

At the end of the day, heads up putting is perfectly valid.

Agreed. It works for me on the short putts (and I use it when I remember to), but I struggle with distance control on the longer ones.

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Agreed. It works for me on the short putts (and I use it when I remember to), but I struggle with distance control on the longer ones.

Mishits or just a stroke thing?

[Ty_Webb]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

Mishits or just a stroke thing?

I think I mentioned it up thread. It's not mishits - I hit it solid. I think it's that subconsciously I judge speed by watching the putter out of my peripheral vision. So if I'm looking at the hole, I can't see the putter and I'm judging the speed of the putter by feel rather than sight. On shorter putts (under about 12 feet or so) that doesn't matter so much. Start line is more important and I find that my start line is better from the heads up putting. Outside of that, speed is more important and I struggle. The other thing is I'm right eye dominant and righty, so my nose gets in the way on longer putts and I have to tilt my head more. I think that messes up with my ability to bring the putter back in the same way as I usually do, so it changes what my feels are for backswing length too. 

^ all speculation - I don't know. It might just be that the days I tried longer heads up putting my touch was out the window for some reason.

[billchao]

10 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

I have never played ice hockey at least, so I don't know, but slap shots are they looking at the puck or where they want it to go?

In hockey you’re generally not looking down at the puck for very long when you have full possession of it. You know where it is because you’re controlling it with your stick.

9 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

Agreed. It works for me on the short putts (and I use it when I remember to), but I struggle with distance control on the longer ones.

Interesting. I have the exact opposite problem. Heads up putting helps my speed tremendously but inside of 10’ I find it hard to hit my line.

[Ty_Webb]

13 hours ago, billchao said:

Interesting. I have the exact opposite problem. Heads up putting helps my speed tremendously but inside of 10’ I find it hard to hit my line.

People are weird right (in general I mean)? I think this is a good reason that it's worthwhile for everyone to try these sorts of things. If they work for you then great. If you don't, then don't do it anymore