Great putting is just luck, why we should make the cup bigger.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by jshots

So then you would say that a good putter on a bad day is missing because they are not putting as well that day in terms of skill rather than bad luck?

I don't see luck as a big part of putting I mean think about it you have to read the break, get a good line, and hit it on the line with correct speed. I guess luck would be you hit the putt to hard but you pulled it so it falls and you hit it poorly. If you read it incorrectly, push or pull it, or have bad speed that would fall under skill not luck in fact putting is probably about the only part of golf where you rarely get a lucky break.

[jshots]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

I don't see luck as a big part of putting I mean think about it you have to read the break, get a good line, and hit it on the line with correct speed. I guess luck would be you hit the putt to hard but you pulled it so it falls and you hit it poorly. If you read it incorrectly, push or pull it, or have bad speed that would fall under skill not luck in fact putting is probably about the only part of golf where you rarely get a lucky break.

I guess I just find it shocking that people think they are simply "in the zone" when they make a ton of putts or that they are having an off day when they miss them all.

I don't have a huge number of rounds to go by and would love to hear about someone elses. If I look at my average number of putts per GIR, it is around 1.95, but there are a few days where I have gone as low as 1.75 and then there are about as many days where I go up to 2.15(roughly). It creates almost a perfect bell curve.

The same kind of curve that poker players look at when they compare skill and luck playing a particular hand, sometimes when you make the right play you get lucky, and sometimes you make the right play you get unlucky, it creates the same bell curve.

[CraiginKSA]

Your reasoning is flawed.  You're saying that if the cup were bigger, then "luck" would be removed from the equation.  That is incredible.  Jim Furyk hasn't three-putt at Harbor Town in over 5 years.  Is he "in the zone".  No! He's a better putter than everyone else.  You can't just say he hits it closer because it's been over 300 holes and he hasn't three-jacked it.  That's a huge sample size.

If you make the hole bigger, then you take the skill factor out of putting.  If you make the rim bigger in basketball, then it takes less skill to make the shot.  If you widen the goal posts in football, then a place kicker makes the kick more often.  He didn't get better, it's just easier.

Take your suggestion to it's ridiculous limit.  Make all the courses 4,000 yards,  Make the hole 2 feet in diameter and make all the greens perfectly flat.  Tiger Woods would never win another tournament.  Because every weekend chopper could shoot 50 on a course like that.

[jshots]

Originally Posted by CraiginKSA

Your reasoning is flawed.  You're saying that if the cup were bigger, then "luck" would be removed from the equation.  That is incredible.  Jim Furyk hasn't three-putt at Harbor Town in over 5 years.  Is he "in the zone".  No! He's a better putter than everyone else.  You can't just say he hits it closer because it's been over 300 holes and he hasn't three-jacked it.  That's a huge sample size.

If you make the hole bigger, then you take the skill factor out of putting.  If you make the rim bigger in basketball, then it takes less skill to make the shot.  If you widen the goal posts in football, then a place kicker makes the kick more often.  He didn't get better, it's just easier.

Take your suggestion to it's ridiculous limit.  Make all the courses 4,000 yards,  Make the hole 2 feet in diameter and make all the greens perfectly flat.  Tiger Woods would never win another tournament.  Because every weekend chopper could shoot 50 on a course like that.

I never said luck would be completely removed from the equation and there is no question that it would make putting somewhat easier. I'm saying the size could in a sense be optimized in order to make the competition steeper by rewarding good shots and also penalizing bad putting (when compared to the rest of the field).

It makes absolutely no sense to take the suggestion to it's ridiculous limit in this argument when we are talking about optimizing the hole size.

[CraiginKSA]

My point is, making the hole bigger does not make someone a better putter.  It just makes it easier.

To justify making the hole bigger, you would have to prove that the current size is unfair and that there is an element of luck involved and that the better putters are somehow penalized based on hole size.  I don't see how that is justified.

Take the case of Steve Elkington.  In 2011, he worked on his putting, got his stroke figured out, read all the greens and holed every single putt inside of 4 feet!  He was something like 375 for 375.  Through hard work and practice he made that happen.  He would be penalized by making the hole bigger because others wouldn't have to work as hard to make all thier putts inside 4 feet.

The game of golf has inherent luck built into it - lies on the fairway, spike marks on the green, gusts of wind...  It's not a precise game.  You try and practice to remove as much of those bad bounces as possible, but it'll never be say the 100 meter dash, where there are no variables.  You can never remove the element of luck from the game.  Making the hole bigger doesn't accomplish that.  It just makes poorer putters hole more putts.

[Righty to Lefty]

I guess I'm on both sides of this arguement....I've put in many hours on the putting green working on three foot putts and have now make somewhere around 90% of my three foot putts.  Knowing that I have a ninety percent chance to make the putt if if can get it close it huge for my confidence.  On the other hand I don't feel that I should have to grind so hard to become competent at making 3 foot putts (not just flat ones,  I'm talkin those nasty sidehill ones that must be started outside the hole).  That is the equivilent of a basketball player staying after practice to work on 3 foot jumpshots....that would be ridiculous!  I don't feel like this is a bad comparison because the basketball hoop and a basketball have the same 2:1 ratio that a golf ball and a hole have.  In the NBA the line of Demarcation  is about 15 feet away from the basket where the line is drawn between the good shooters and the best shooters...in golf it is really at about 5 feet where the chance to make is around 50% and I feel that it should be a lil further away from the hole than that.

Good putters would still be good putters  and bad putters would still be bad it's just that the percentages would be moved further away from the hole. All that means is that my 90% of 3 footers made would be 90% of 5 footer's made but my percentages would still drop in proportion the further I got away from the hole and the relationship between myself and a PGA tour pro and a lesser putter would still remain the same so in esscence the distinction between a good putter and a bad putter would still remain exactly the same.

I don't think that the hole should be a foot wide but I would be all for adding say an inch in diameter to the cup(or whatever it took to get me to make 90% of my 5 foot putts).....Bottom line is I don't believe that you should have to grind it out over "3 foot jump shots!" I absolutely don't believe that a 3-5 foot putt should carry the same weight as a great  approach shot.  Congratultions you hit the ball over the hazard safely onto the green from 210 yards away to 5 feet...and your reward is a 50-50 chance to make birdie!

Am I alone in this thinking?

[ApocG10]

No way.

Just got back from the gym and a run, so im going to shower and do a few things, but i'll post my reasoning why later. For now, i'll leave it at this.

I dont want anything I do made easier to make those who dont take the time to work on their game better at it. Sounds like a crybaby solution to me. waaahhh, i'm not a good putter, and dont want to work hard. Make the whole bigger for me.

I'll post more later, but thats what I get from people who want the game made easier.

[pepsiplusconker]

Originally Posted by jshots

I guess I just find it shocking that people think they are simply "in the zone" when they make a ton of putts or that they are having an off day when they miss them all.

I don't have a huge number of rounds to go by and would love to hear about someone elses. If I look at my average number of putts per GIR, it is around 1.95, but there are a few days where I have gone as low as 1.75 and then there are about as many days where I go up to 2.15(roughly). It creates almost a perfect bell curve.

The same kind of curve that poker players look at when they compare skill and luck playing a particular hand, sometimes when you make the right play you get lucky, and sometimes you make the right play you get unlucky, it creates the same bell curve.

Hahaha, is this thread a joke.

I can't believe what I am reading, there is so many reasons why you are talking a load of rubbish.

Over a big sample size, skill will always prevail, whether it is poker, football, snooker, or golf.

Would it make you feel better if you 1 putted 14 holes............... but everyone else one putted the same 14 too?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by jshots

So we should stick with 4.25" just for the sake of tradition? That is ridiculous. So it was arbitrary but why should it be when we could improve competition by increasing the size of the cup?

How is it illogical to make putts easier? It would make a bad putter lose more strokes for bad putting compared to the field. How does it make sense that whether you land at 10 feet, or you land and 50 feet, you are more than likely going to 2 putt? Players aren't typically rewarded for doing anything other than sticking it within 8 feet of the pin. But arguably many shots that land further than 8 feet are also great shots that deserve more reward than they are given.

You are backing a flawed philosophy.  You would make bad putters nearly as successful as good putters.  It would be unnecessary to read a break precisely, just hit the ball harder and it's going to fall because it's going to be nearly impossible to hop it over the hole or lip it out.  In fact, lip outs would became almost impossible.  If you can't see that in your mind, then make a 7 inch hole and try to make a golf ball lip out on it.  You didn't take luck out of the formula, you just took the skill out of it.

Originally Posted by jshots

I guess I just find it shocking that people think they are simply "in the zone" when they make a ton of putts or that they are having an off day when they miss them all.

I don't have a huge number of rounds to go by and would love to hear about someone elses. If I look at my average number of putts per GIR, it is around 1.95, but there are a few days where I have gone as low as 1.75 and then there are about as many days where I go up to 2.15(roughly). It creates almost a perfect bell curve.

The same kind of curve that poker players look at when they compare skill and luck playing a particular hand, sometimes when you make the right play you get lucky, and sometimes you make the right play you get unlucky, it creates the same bell curve.

Have you never been in the zone, where you just feel "right" about every putt?  I have, and I don't purport to have a 7 handicap.  That isn't luck.  It's talent, skill, competence, whatever you like, but it isn't luck.  Just because your skill doesn't manifest itself the same every day doesn't mean that it's good luck one day and bad luck the next.  Blaming luck is a cop out.  It just means that nobody is the same, physically and mentally, every day, 24-7.  On those days where I lip out 4 or 5 putts, I'm still putting very well.   When I start missing those same putts consistently 2 or 3 rounds in a row, or by a larger margin, then it's time for session on the practice green, not for a search for a 4 leaf clover.

Originally Posted by jshots

I never said luck would be completely removed from the equation and there is no question that it would make putting somewhat easier. I'm saying the size could in a sense be optimized in order to make the competition steeper by rewarding good shots and also penalizing bad putting (when compared to the rest of the field).

It makes absolutely no sense to take the suggestion to it's ridiculous limit in this argument when we are talking about optimizing the hole size.

The hole size is already optimized.  It's more than twice the size of the ball  (2.5297 times as big actually).  Make it much bigger and all challenge is gone.   Sure you would make the competitions stiffer, but you have done so by taking skill out of the equation.  You haven't added luck, you have just made it easier to make putts, so a weak putter has just as much chance of holing a 5 footer as a good putter.  It just means that the good player will have a harder time separating himself from the average player.  A player who has taken the time to work hard on his putting shouldn't have to sit and watch a bogey shooting weekend golfer ram 10 footers home time after time just because he now has a 6" hole to shoot for.

Unless you come up with an argument that makes sense, I'm done with this discussion.  Your idea won't hold water, no matter how much you try to justify it.  If you can't see that putting is all about skill and practice and less about luck than any other part of the game of golf, then it's no use trying to change your mind.

[jshots]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You are backing a flawed philosophy.  You would make bad putters nearly as successful as good putters.  It would be unnecessary to read a break precisely, just hit the ball harder and it's going to fall because it's going to be nearly impossible to hop it over the hole or lip it out.  In fact, lip outs would became almost impossible.  If you can't see that in your mind, then make a 7 inch hole and try to make a golf ball lip out on it.  You didn't take luck out of the formula, you just took the skill out of it.

I guess I can't say you're wrong because I've never putted on a bigger hole but i would imagine that a slightly bigger hole is not going to make it that much easier to make putts from outside 5 feet. It would hopefully turn 5 feet to more of what 3 feet is now. You still need skill to make the longer putts.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Have you never been in the zone, where you just feel "right" about every putt?  I have, and I don't purport to have a 7 handicap.  That isn't luck.  It's talent, skill, competence, whatever you like, but it isn't luck.  Just because your skill doesn't manifest itself the same every day doesn't mean that it's good luck one day and bad luck the next.  Blaming luck is a cop out.  It just means that nobody is the same, physically and mentally, every day, 24-7.  On those days where I lip out 4 or 5 putts, I'm still putting very well.   When I start missing those same putts consistently 2 or 3 rounds in a row, or by a larger margin, then it's time for session on the practice green, not for a search for a 4 leaf clover.

I putt the same greens on 2 courses probably 95% of the time and I feel like I am "in the zone" every day. I have a routine, I don't ever hit a putt unless I feel like I've got anything but the perfect line, why in the world would you? My good days come when my stroke is on. But I've stopped judging a good or bad day by whether or not I made an abnormal amount of 15 footers. Some days I end up feeling better about it because more of them went in. The bad days when I'm stroking it well I'm never missing by very much. Then there is a completely different kind of day where my stroke is off and I miss by a lot more. A slightly bigger cup would not help me on those days.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Unless you come up with an argument that makes sense, I'm done with this discussion.  Your idea won't hold water, no matter how much you try to justify it.  If you can't see that putting is all about skill and practice and less about luck than any other part of the game of golf, then it's no use trying to change your mind.

Putting is far far less about skill and practice than any other part of the game. Where do you even get that idea that it is more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApocG10

I dont want anything I do made easier to make those who dont take the time to work on their game better at it. Sounds like a crybaby solution to me. waaahhh, i'm not a good putter, and dont want to work hard. Make the whole bigger for me.

You can only get so good at putting. And no matter how good you get, you'll never make more than a few long putts, at least no one ever has.

Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker

Over a big sample size, skill will always prevail, whether it is poker, football, snooker, or golf.

Would it make you feel better if you 1 putted 14 holes............... but everyone else one putted the same 14 too?

Yeah no shit skill will always prevail, it still would with a bigger cup. A 1-2 inch bigger hole is not going to allow everyone to one putt every single time. It would make putting more fun by increasing the chance of rewarding a good approach shot.

[newtogolf]

Putting imo is purely about skill, skill in reading greens, skill in learning to judge distance and stroke, skill in controlling your mental state and nerves.  Do you believe that Tiger is less lucky these days than he was earlier in his career or has he lost the mental edge and discipline he had while on the greens?   Luck is when a guy hits a putt with his eyes closed and has no clue how to read greens.  When a pro hits a putt, it's not luck, it's skill.

Originally Posted by jshots

You can only get so good at putting. And no matter how good you get, you'll never make more than a few long putts, at least no one ever has.

Yeah no shit skill will always prevail, it still would with a bigger cup. A 1-2 inch bigger hole is not going to allow everyone to one putt every single time. It would make putting more fun by increasing the chance of rewarding a good approach shot.

[jshots]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Putting imo is purely about skill, skill in reading greens, skill in learning to judge distance and stroke, skill in controlling your mental state and nerves.  Do you believe that Tiger is less lucky these days than he was earlier in his career or has he lost the mental edge and discipline he had while on the greens?   Luck is when a guy hits a putt with his eyes closed and has no clue how to read greens.  When a pro hits a putt, it's not luck, it's skill.

I'm not denying that it is skill to a certain point. I believe Tiger has less skill than he had in the past. But I'm simply saying that when someone is putting exceptionally well, it is not due to them having more skill on that day, they are just getting lucky. If it were due to skill than it would happen far more often.

[pepsiplusconker]

I just don't get why you think it matters, it will just be a relative change, you, yourself will get better scores, but so will everyone else, so what is the difference, will it just make you feel better because the number is lower?

Its just another part of the game, and the reason why each hole is designated 2 shots just for putting, because its hard, if you can't 2 putt every hole, you need to practice putting.

[pepsiplusconker]

Originally Posted by jshots

I'm not denying that it is skill to a certain point. I believe Tiger has less skill than he had in the past. But I'm simply saying that when someone is putting exceptionally well, it is not due to them having more skill on that day, they are just getting lucky. If it were due to skill than it would happen far more often.

It does happen far more often, for pros who are more skillful than me and you.

You don't think that if you and a pro shot 1000 balls at a pin 100 yards away, that him holing more than you wouldn't come from his ability to put it closer to the hole over that time?

[x129]

Changing the hole size will chance the value of putting versus ball striking.

i could see making the hole slightly bigger (lets say an inch or two) could make the game better.  Right now you end up with a lot of lag putts where the difference between a good one (1 foot by the hole and a bad one 3 feet by the hole) is minimal. Maybe a 6" hole would allow you make a reasonable amount of your 20 footers rather than the current situation where they are lag putts that end up a foot from the hole 90% of th etime.

I am guessing 6" cups would be fun as you would probably double your chances of sinking 20 footers while 20" would be no fun (i.e. the number of 1 putts and chip ins would be insane).

[jshots]

Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker

I just don't get why you think it matters, it will just be a relative change, you, yourself will get better scores, but so will everyone else, so what is the difference, will it just make you feel better because the number is lower?

Its just another part of the game, and the reason why each hole is designated 2 shots just for putting, because its hard, if you can't 2 putt every hole, you need to practice putting.

It would make the game more fun, it would make putting more fun. It would make putting more fun to watch on TV. I personally consider anything inside 20 feet on an approach a good shot. Not just for me, but for anybody no matter the skill level. But from 15-20 feet, it's rare that someone is rewarded with a birdie.

Originally Posted by pepsiplusconker

It does happen far more often, for pros who are more skillful than me and you.

You don't think that if you and a pro shot 1000 balls at a pin 100 yards away, that him holing more than you wouldn't come from his ability to put it closer to the hole over that time?

Yes no doubt about it, but that doesn't mean that lights out putting is a common occurrence for a tour pro. Those days fall outside of the average day on a bell curve even when someone is stroking the ball well.

Originally Posted by x129

Changing the hole size will chance the value of putting versus ball striking.

i could see making the hole slightly bigger (lets say an inch or two) could make the game better.  Right now you end up with a lot of lag putts where the difference between a good one (1 foot by the hole and a bad one 3 feet by the hole) is minimal. Maybe a 6" hole would allow you make a reasonable amount of your 20 footers rather than the current situation where they are lag putts that end up a foot from the hole 90% of th etime.

I am guessing 6" cups would be fun as you would probably double your chances of sinking 20 footers while 20" would be no fun (i.e. the number of 1 putts and chip ins would be insane).

Yes this is exactly what i'm talking about.

[Righty to Lefty]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You are backing a flawed philosophy.  You would make bad putters nearly as successful as good putters.  It would be unnecessary to read a break precisely, just hit the ball harder and it's going to fall because it's going to be nearly impossible to hop it over the hole or lip it out.  In fact, lip outs would became almost impossible.  If you can't see that in your mind, then make a 7 inch hole and try to make a golf ball lip out on it.  You didn't take luck out of the formula, you just took the skill out of it.

Have you never been in the zone, where you just feel "right" about every putt?  I have, and I don't purport to have a 7 handicap.  That isn't luck.  It's talent, skill, competence, whatever you like, but it isn't luck.  Just because your skill doesn't manifest itself the same every day doesn't mean that it's good luck one day and bad luck the next.  Blaming luck is a cop out.  It just means that nobody is the same, physically and mentally, every day, 24-7.  On those days where I lip out 4 or 5 putts, I'm still putting very well.   When I start missing those same putts consistently 2 or 3 rounds in a row, or by a larger margin, then it's time for session on the practice green, not for a search for a 4 leaf clover.

The hole size is already optimized.  It's more than twice the size of the ball  (2.5297 times as big actually).  Make it much bigger and all challenge is gone.   Sure you would make the competitions stiffer, but you have done so by taking skill out of the equation.  You haven't added luck, you have just made it easier to make putts, so a weak putter has just as much chance of holing a 5 footer as a good putter.  It just means that the good player will have a harder time separating himself from the average player.  A player who has taken the time to work hard on his putting shouldn't have to sit and watch a bogey shooting weekend golfer ram 10 footers home time after time just because he now has a 6" hole to shoot for.

Unless you come up with an argument that makes sense, I'm done with this discussion.  Your idea won't hold water, no matter how much you try to justify it.  If you can't see that putting is all about skill and practice and less about luck than any other part of the game of golf, then it's no use trying to change your mind.

I guess I'm on both sides of this arguement....I've put in many hours on the putting green working on three foot putts and have now make somewhere around 90% of my three foot putts.  Knowing that I have a ninety percent chance to make the putt if if can get it close it huge for my confidence.  On the other hand I don't feel that I should have to grind so hard to become competent at making 3 foot putts (not just flat ones,  I'm talkin those nasty sidehill ones that must be started outside the hole).  That is the equivilent of a basketball player staying after practice to work on 3 foot jumpshots....that would be ridiculous!  I don't feel like this is a bad comparison because the basketball hoop and a basketball have the same 2:1 ratio that a golf ball and a hole have.  In the NBA the line of Demarcation  is about 15 feet away from the basket where the line is drawn between the good shooters and the best shooters...in golf it is really at about 5 feet where the chance to make is around 50% and I feel that it should be a lil further away from the hole than that.

Good putters would still be good putters  and bad putters would still be bad it's just that the percentages would be moved further away from the hole. All that means is that my 90% of 3 footers made would be 90% of 5 footer's made but my percentages would still drop in proportion the further I got away from the hole and the relationship between myself and a PGA tour pro and a lesser putter would still remain the same so in esscence the distinction between a good putter and a bad putter would still remain exactly the same.

I don't think that the hole should be a foot wide but I would be all for adding say an inch in diameter to the cup(or whatever it took to get me to make 90% of my 5 foot putts).....Bottom line is I don't believe that you should have to grind it out over "3 foot jump shots!" I absolutely don't believe that a 3-5 foot putt should carry the same weight as a great  approach shot.  Congratultions you hit the ball over the hazard safely onto the green from 210 yards away to 5 feet...and your reward is a 50-50 chance to make birdie!

Am I alone in this thinking?

[walk18]

No thanks, I'd rather just stick to playing golf, frustrating as it may be.