Why? On 40 foot putts, they both don’t have much of a chance.
It’s the putts inside 15 feet that have the highest Separation Value.
So if a great putter makes 5 of 10 putts at 8 feet (tour average) on tour greens and he missed 1 or 2 more on crappy greens, his percentage changes more. The bad putter is missing more of those anyway, even on good greens.
Right. I think you could make the case that for a single longer putt (40 feet? 50 feet?) the greens would hurt a mediocre putter more and widen the gap. Because speed is such an important variable, and the mediocre putter is more likely to miss the sweet spot, hit a putt with sidespin, or do any number of things to increase the impact of imperfections on the greens. But at the end of the day, those long putts become short or mid-range putts and I think the net effect hurts the good putter more when everything is combined together.
I would change my vote to slightly narrowing. When I voted, I was thinking long putts where the make percentage is low. But it does raise a question. Certainly at 5ft or maybe 10ft, the gap is narrowed because it could only hurt the better putter. At what distance does it start to not matter? Like at 30ft, chances are already low of making a putt amongst the best. Adding in bumpiness is not going to make much difference between the two skill levels. So at what distance is the breaking point?