Short Putts Firm?

[Spyder]

I personally try to kill my ball at the hole and like Erik said, I always end up with a few putts that are merely a half of a roll from going on. I do leave nice follow-up shots though.

I normally tend to aim past the hole on Eagle/Birdie attempts and try to kill the ball in the hole on Par putts. I find it hard, mentally, to apply the same "aim past the hole" logic on my Par putts in fear that I'll run past and leave a nasty/similar Bogey attempt. Inconsistency in my mental game when it comes to putting is a major factor in my scores not being lower than they are and I know that.

Can't argue with logic when the results smack you in the face after 18!

[iacas]

Originally Posted by dsc123

When he said die at the hole I understood it as not making it past the hole if it were off line (or maybe 1-2 inches past).  At 6-12, a putt that's one inch shorter than intended would still be 5-11 inches past and not short of the hole.  Don't you say 6-12 or 9 instead of 6 for this reason?

I consider 9 inches past "dying it at the hole."

Originally Posted by dsc123

Do you know how fast you'd have to hit a straight putt for the ball to not go in?  I mean, assuming perfect line, that it would skip straight over the hole.  I don't have a clue.

Depending on the stimp, as little as six feet past the hole will make the putt un-holeable even if you hit it across the widest part (the center) of the hole.

(Stimp is important when we're talking about how far past the hole the ball would roll - the actual speed is the exact same regardless of stimp, and you can figure it out really easily - it's the speed that would have a ball falling < 0.84" over 4.25".

Originally Posted by dsc123

What I meant is that you are assuming that the player is able to hit the ball at the intended speed, as if the only potential error the player makes when putting is direction.  I accept that soft maximizes width of the hole.  Do you accept that firm gives you more margin of error on the speed with which you strike the putt?  I.e., accidentally hitting it more or less than 6 inches past?

No. That doesn't really make any sense because people don't often hit a three foot putt only 2.5 feet. They don't make gross errors in speed like you need them to make for your math to have any chance of making sense (and your math assumes they can hit a much smaller target).

Originally Posted by dsc123

How can it be subjective and false?  Others on here have said they make more confident strokes when going firm.  I don't know why you would call that "false."  And I'm not telling you that you're wrong to putt the way you putt, or that you should do it differently.  I'm just saying I don't think you can sit here and say that firm is wrong.

Firm is wrong mathematically. He's just saying that "firm = confident" doesn't apply to everyone.

I think players who hit the ball firmly are more likely to get the yips, too, because hitting it firmly makes it very sensitive to the line.

Originally Posted by dsc123

If you hit your line, how close to do you have to be to 6 inches to still make the putt?  Anybody know this?

If you miss your line with the correct speed, we know you have a target that's 3.8" wide.

From those two, can you draw a diagram showing the space where, absent a hole, the ball would stop, and with a hole the ball would fall in the cup?  I.e., the target area that would result in a made putt.

1. We've already given you the math. The angles are bigger. You have more margin for error.
2. And if you hit your line but miss the speed, the target is still bigger.
3. No need. The numbers have been shared a few times now.

Originally Posted by dsc123

I imagine you'd have a long skinny cone, a shorter fatter cone.  One covers more area than the other.  Whichever that is, would be the strategy that maximizes your odds of hitting the putt, if you remove green reading, confidence, preference, etc from the equation.

The shorter fatter one would cover more area at the hole. Who cares what area of the green it covers - anything past the hole is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by dsc123

Right, that's my point.  The margin of error is 2 dimensional.  I suggest that it might be reasonable to give up .17" in lateral margin of error, to gain 12.0" in depth margin of error. (I'm using your numbers, which I think are off and make my point look better)  I further suggest, that if a person tends to miss short putts because he gets the speed wrong more often than he misses his intended line (we're not talking mis-reads), that person is probably better off hitting it firm.

The numbers don't work out in your favor. People are way better at controlling distance (we're talking about short putts) than fractions of a degree in face angle. You can use the numbers all you want, but if you use them wrong, it's kind of pointless.

Originally Posted by dsc123

And to me, this is sort of a side point.  I take issue with the idea that widening the hole is the only factor that should be considered in determining what speed maximizes the margin of error given the correct read.  I just mentioned this because its another benefit that people have mentioned of putting firm.  Another would be that you're removing the break.  If you're looking at a putt and you can't really tell if its left edge or 2 inches outside, you can hit it firm to an inch inside the left edge.  If you hit your intended line, the ball isn't going to miss left and if you miss low--a firm 3 foot put breaking 3+ inches--you've misread the break pretty badly and its likely that a soft putt 2 inches left would have missed low too.

No.

You've not created similar situations.

In the firm one, you've got to read the putt better AND strike it on a better line.

In the softer scenario, you can misread the putt AND miss the line by a little more.

The hole is effectively larger. You're hitting to a single infinitely small point regardless of what speed you're playing - yet the firmer you hit a putt the smaller the acceptable margin of error gets. You can "use up" that margin of error by slightly misreading the putt or by hitting it slightly offline. You get a smaller margin when you hit the putt firmer than otherwise.

Also, the math is wrong on your example. If you play inside the left edge (one inch of break), the putt might only have to break 1.7 inches for you to miss the putt. Not 3+ inches.

[Jimdangles]

I think no matter how you are going to putt it be certain of how you plan on putting and commit to it. I cant tell you how many times I tried to hit it firm but still played break or die it in and not play break because I hadn't committed. Lately ALWAYS trying to die it in has helped me to at least commit.

[reedf]

Originally Posted by iacas

I consider 9 inches past "dying it at the hole."

For me, this is the difference. I consider dying it at the hole the way dsc123 described. I consider 9 or more inches past as firm. So going by your definition, I will not hit it firm, but by my definition, I will. So I both agree and disagree with you I guess.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by reedf

For me, this is the difference. I consider dying it at the hole the way dsc123 described. I consider 9 or more inches past as firm. So going by your definition, I will not hit it firm, but by my definition, I will. So I both agree and disagree with you I guess.

Really?

How long is your version of nine inches? Or are you playing on greens that stimp at 1.5 or 2 on a good day?

Nine inches is 1.7 revolutions of a golf ball. That's not very fast.

[dsc123]

You guys keep insisting that 6 inches or 9 inches or 6-12 inches is mathmatically correct.  But its not by your own calculation (it doesn't have to be).  In your original post about the cup size, you explain that the size of the cup is maximized at "die in the hole" i.e., the last roll falls into the cup (not the 9 inches that your calling die in the hole here).  That gives you all 4.25."  Then you give three points as to why its not a good idea to do that, 1) never up never in, 2) lumpy donut, and 3)  wobble.  In doing so, you recognize that maximizing the width of the hole is not the sole factor, and you are advocating shrinking the hold by almost a quarter inch on either side to account for these.  So it comes down to the benefits of each and where they break even.

At 6 inches, you've cured those three concerns mostly.  I'm just saying that speed is still a concern that can't be ignored and a decision as to what is "optimal" requires quantification of not only what you gain by hitting it 6 inches past, but also a quantification of what you lose by not hitting it firm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Depending on the stimp, as little as six feet past the hole will make the putt un-holeable even if you hit it across the widest part (the center) of the hole.

So that number is probably for a stimp, like 8 or so, which is what your original post was based on?  Interesting.  Longer than I expected.

Quote:

No. That doesn't really make any sense because people don't often hit a three foot putt only 2.5 feet. They don't make gross errors in speed like you need them to make for your math to have any chance of making sense (and your math assumes they can hit a much smaller target).

This is an interesting point and the only one, in my opinion, that gets to the heart of the matter.  In fact, I think this is the logical flaw that kept killing my train of thought when I tried to draw my diagram.  Given a perfect line, you can hit the ball anywhere from 0" to 72" past the hole and still make it.  But even a firm putter with poor distance control isn't going to aim for 24" and hit it 72", so some of that is useless margin for error.

So it comes down to, what is the trade off, i.e., how much speed marginal error do you sacrifice to gain how much directional, and at what point do those two break even.  I dont know the answer.  But "the hole is bigger at 6 inches" doesn't answer it either.

Quote:

1. We've already given you the math. The angles are bigger. You have more margin for error.
2. And if you hit your line but miss the speed, the target is still bigger.
3. No need. The numbers have been shared a few times now.

The shorter fatter one would cover more area at the hole. Who cares what area of the green it covers - anything past the hole is irrelevant.

I am just being dense?  If you get the right read and hit your intended line, we know that you have a 3.8" target.  My question was how hard do you have to hit it for the ball, on that line, to miss high?  I'm talking about the effect of speed on how much the ball moves right and left.  I don't see where that has been explained a number of times.  I would guess that's its something like 15 inches past the hole, and that at the correct line, you'd hit the 3.8" target so long as you hit the ball from 2 to 15" past the hole.   So your total margin for error is some sort of product of the width of the hole at 2", 3", 4", through 15" (of speed), and possibly even weighted to account for the fact that you're more likely to miss by 2 inches than 7.

The diagram would represent the speed/direction combinations that would end up in the hole using each method.  The areas are past the hole because they represent a ball that would fall into the hole; this whole conversation is about how far past the hole to aim.

Quote:

The numbers don't work out in your favor. People are way better at controlling distance (we're talking about short putts) than fractions of a degree in face angle. You can use the numbers all you want, but if you use them wrong, it's kind of pointless.

I was just using his numbers.  But your saying that everybody misses short putts far more often because they leave the face open or closed than intended than because they hit it too hard or too soft?   When I try to think about my short misses, other than simply not paying attention, or misreading, its because I hit it through the break.  We're talking about 3 footers, so it doesn't happen often, but when it does, I usually think its an distance control issue.  I play break but hit it too hard through the break.  Maybe i'm wrong, and maybe i'm the only one, i dont know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

No.

You've not created similar situations.

In the firm one, you've got to read the putt better AND strike it on a better line.

In the softer scenario, you can misread the putt AND miss the line by a little more.

The hole is effectively larger. You're hitting to a single infinitely small point regardless of what speed you're playing - yet the firmer you hit a putt the smaller the acceptable margin of error gets. You can "use up" that margin of error by slightly misreading the putt or by hitting it slightly offline. You get a smaller margin when you hit the putt firmer than otherwise.

Also, the math is wrong on your example. If you play inside the left edge (one inch of break), the putt might only have to break 1.7 inches for you to miss the putt. Not 3+ inches.

Its hard to have this discussion without real numbers, and I have no idea how much less a ball breaks over the first 3 feet when struck 5 feet as opposed to a ball struck 3.5 feet.  I know its less, but I can't quantify it.  But I'll demonstrate with what we can quantify.  Say the true break is 4 inches and you think its 2.  If you play it soft, you only have 1.9" to give and you miss.  If you play it firm and center (and a firm putter is probably giving a little respect to the break rather than playing center) you only have 1.4" to give.  Agreed.  The hole is smaller.  However, if putting firm removes .6 inches of the break, it could be the better strategy.  Like I said, I dont have a number to back this up, but I think putting firm probably takes more than 15% of the break out of the putt.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by reedf

I consider dying it at the hole the way dsc123 described.

So did erik when he explained why not to "die at the hole" in the original post.  But thats just semantics! as long as we all know what we're talking about.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by dsc123

You guys keep insisting that 6 inches or 9 inches or 6-12 inches is mathmatically correct.  But its not by your own calculation (it doesn't have to be).  In your original post about the cup size, you explain that the size of the cup is maximized at "die in the hole" i.e., the last roll falls into the cup (not the 9 inches that your calling die in the hole here).  That gives you all 4.25."  Then you give three points as to why its not a good idea to do that, 1) never up never in, 2) lumpy donut, and 3)  wobble.

Nine inches past is not a putt hit firmly. It's a putt hit softly. It keeps the hole as large as possible while eliminating the three issues above.

My first post in this thread called "dying at the hole" nine inches. Only the much older post on capture speed used (and defined) different terminology because we were talking about a much larger number of distances: 0", 6", 1 foot, 2 feet, 3 feet, 4 feet, 5 feet...

For the purposes of this thread, nine inches = dying.

Originally Posted by dsc123

At 6 inches, you've cured those three concerns mostly.  I'm just saying that speed is still a concern that can't be ignored and a decision as to what is "optimal" requires quantification of not only what you gain by hitting it 6 inches past, but also a quantification of what you lose by not hitting it firm.

And I'm saying that speed is way less of a concern than someone hitting a putt firmly and making the angle a far greater concern. People goof up the error FAR MORE than they goof up the speed in an amount large enough to miss putts.

You lose more than you gain hitting it firm. You lose the far more important (and sensitive) margin of error side to side and gain a very small and quite a bit less important error in judging speed.

Originally Posted by dsc123

So it comes down to, what is the trade off, i.e., how much speed marginal error do you sacrifice to gain how much directional, and at what point do those two break even.  I dont know the answer.  But "the hole is bigger at 6 inches" doesn't answer it either.

I've already shared the results of that. People are far and away more likely to miss their angle by enough to miss the putt than to miss their speed. So people will make more putts if they try to maximize their margin of error on the angle so long as they're not literally leaving putts short of the hole.

Originally Posted by dsc123

I am just being dense?  If you get the right read and hit your intended line, we know that you have a 3.8" target.  My question was how hard do you have to hit it for the ball, on that line, to miss high?  I'm talking about the effect of speed on how much the ball moves right and left.  I don't see where that has been explained a number of times.  I would guess that's its something like 15 inches past the hole

It's quite a bit more than 15 inches. You can't get an actual answer, though, because we don't know the % slope or the stimp of the green or your angle to the slope. But it's way more than 15 inches unless your green is stimping at 6 or something.

Originally Posted by dsc123

The diagram would represent the speed/direction combinations that would end up in the hole using each method.  The areas are past the hole because they represent a ball that would fall into the hole; this whole conversation is about how far past the hole to aim.

Nine inches. :)

Seriously, I don't think you appreciate the complexity of answering your questions. The answer will quite literally change if your angle to the slope goes from 45° to 60°, or the stimp goes from 10.5 to 10, or the % slope goes from 3 to 4.

So generalities are all we can really have, and in general, golfers miss their angle by greater margins (as defined by "enough to miss the putt") than they are to miss their speed.

Originally Posted by dsc123

I was just using his numbers.  But your saying that everybody misses short putts far more often because they leave the face open or closed than intended than because they hit it too hard or too soft?   When I try to think about my short misses, other than simply not paying attention, or misreading, its because I hit it through the break.  We're talking about 3 footers, so it doesn't happen often, but when it does, I usually think its an distance control issue.  I play break but hit it too hard through the break.  Maybe i'm wrong, and maybe i'm the only one, i dont know.

As you can imagine, personal experiences don't really matter much. They matter a great deal to you of course, but to the generalities, they don't.

You could easily say that you missed your line. Or your distance control is terrible. Either way, your own example could support either one of us. You missed the "proper" line for the speed at which you hit the ball. Who is to say which is really at fault? You've probably pulled or pushed some of those and drilled them into the hole, too. Same thing: a misread, but you compounded your errors in a way that let you make it.

Originally Posted by dsc123

Its hard to have this discussion without real numbers, and I have no idea how much less a ball breaks over the first 3 feet when struck 5 feet as opposed to a ball struck 3.5 feet.  I know its less, but I can't quantify it.  But I'll demonstrate with what we can quantify.  Say the true break is 4 inches and you think its 2.  If you play it soft, you only have 1.9" to give and you miss.  If you play it firm and center (and a firm putter is probably giving a little respect to the break rather than playing center) you only have 1.4" to give.  Agreed.  The hole is smaller.  However, if putting firm removes .6 inches of the break, it could be the better strategy.  Like I said, I dont have a number to back this up, but I think putting firm probably takes more than 15% of the break out of the putt.

I can quantify that. But you have to give me a specific amount.

Here you go.

1. 90° to the slope.
2. Four footer.
3. 2.5% slope.
4. Stimp 10.

At nine inches the ball will break five inches (three inches outside the hole).

At three feet past the hole the ball will break almost four inches (two inches outside the hole).

Yet one of them gives you a hole that's 3.8" large and the other gives you a hole that's 1.4" large. The read is almost the same. In fact, you can hit it at the 3-foot read and if you hit it with nine inch speed you'll still make the putt. You cannot hit the three foot speed and aim at the nine-inch read and make the putt.

[hero12]

If people are thinking this hard over a 2-3 foot putt then I can't imagine how many swing thoughts are running through their head on the tee.  On putts that short I'm usually only concerned about speed and break if it has a ton of break, otherwise all I think about is making the ball in the hole, but maybe I'm just naive.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by hero12

If people are thinking this hard over a 2-3 foot putt then I can't imagine how many swing thoughts are running through their head on the tee.  On putts that short I'm usually only concerned about speed and break if it has a ton of break, otherwise all I think about is making the ball in the hole, but maybe I'm just naive.

The difference is this is a forum where we discuss things. On the course, I get my read, I hit my putt.

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by iacas

The difference is this is a forum where we discuss things. On the course, I get my read, I hit my putt.

Yeah right, Erik. We all know that you're crunching numbers like an accountant before every putt you Mathaholic!

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Spyder

Yeah right, Erik. We all know that you're crunching numbers like an accountant before every putt you Mathaholic!

What? I couldn't hear you over my abacus. I don't trust science or technology. It's all old school here.

Abacus are legal for use on the golf course so long as they're used in their accustomed manner (to do math). :)

[zeg]

Originally Posted by iacas

For the purposes of this thread, nine inches = dying.

Interesting. While I wouldn't call nine inches past the hole "firm" either, it's decidedly different than I'd *ever* call a ball that "died" in the hole. Dying isn't just moving slowly, it's when you are groaning because you just left one on the lip, followed by a sigh of relief as it just barely drops in. It's more like a putt that would have stopped at the center of the hole, not a couple rolls past. But, if we're going to use it in a different way for this thread, that's fine with me.

To the overall point, the math is great, but I see various assertions being tossed back and forth about how "most golfers" can or can't control speed and line to various degrees. These are not questions that can be answered just by thinking about your last round, or how it feels when you're out there. In contrast to questions about the optimal speed to maximize the size of the hole, I am skeptical that even an experienced coach can use his accumulated memory to answer that question correctly. To do this "constructively," what we need is a systematic study of how well golfers can control their distance as a function of the length of the putt, and how well they can control the starting line of their putt, again as a function of length of the putt or starting speed.

The problem has been stated a few times above, but the goal of putting is not to maximize the size of the hole. The goal is to maximize the probability that a putt goes in the hole. Notwithstanding my above comment about needing real data for this, my own experience suggests that some distances are easier to putt than others. I think I'm probably better at hitting a 5-foot putt on line than I am a 2-foot putt, simply because hitting a putt that rolls 2 feet and stops requires more attention to pace, increasing the chances that I fail to let the putter square up. And, furthermore, I wouldn't say it's all that rare to leave a very short putt short, especially when there's a slope involved.

So, that's my gut feeling response, which as I said above is not the correct way to definitively answer this. However, it's enough to make me skeptical of claims about particular paces being truly optimal when such claims contrast with my own experience.

In the absence of a proper study, the thing to do is just to practice these many times and find out what works best for you. It's hard to generalize this, though, because I'm not sure how you'd reliably test whether a golfer is really applying a particular strategy on a given putt. You could ask a test participant to apply the "firm" strategy for a while, but if it doesn't seem to be working, he may quietly revert to the "9-inch past" strategy and it would be difficult to detect this. I think independently examining the ability to hit the ball with a given speed and line would be better, though even that ignores the subconscious ability of a person to make unknown corrections when presented with a hole to putt towards.

[colin007]

Originally Posted by iacas

What? I couldn't hear you over my abacus. I don't trust science or technology. It's all old school here.

Abacus are legal for use on the golf course so long as they're used in their accustomed manner (to do math). :)

isnt the plural of abacus "abacii"?

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by zeg

Interesting. While I wouldn't call nine inches past the hole "firm" either, it's decidedly different than I'd *ever* call a ball that "died" in the hole. Dying isn't just moving slowly, it's when you are groaning because you just left one on the lip, followed by a sigh of relief as it just barely drops in. It's more like a putt that would have stopped at the center of the hole, not a couple rolls past. But, if we're going to use it in a different way for this thread, that's fine with me.

This is what I considered to be a ball "dying" at the hole, or "killing it at the hole" (whatever terminology you choose to use). Personally, this is how I leave many putts. I also get left hanging a half rev from dropping, or even a 1/4 many, many times. I typically average 3 putts that legitimately die on the proper line right on the edge of the cup where it feels like a strong gust of wind could blow the ball in for me.

I have a 7:30 AM tee time tomorrow morning though with some buddies so I will definitely expand my line beyond the hole as discussed here by Erik. I typically look a few inches past the hole, but I'll try the "shoot for 9-12 inches beyond the hole" method to see if I notice any improvement.

[mdl]

Look at the physics guys!  Read Erik's link on the first page to the putting capture speed thread.  Say hitting it firm and taking out some of the break is aiming for 2' past the hole speed wise.  The other option is dying it in with 6" past the hole speed.  The only argument for 2' past is if you think you're MORE THAN TWICE as accurate hitting the ball, say, 5' instead of 3.5' (assuming a 3' putt).  If you're more than twice as accurate hitting the putt 5' compared to 3.5', then you've got major mechanical or mental game problems.

And the argument that hitting it firm takes away one of the variables (reading the break) is rarely applicable.  That only applies if you personally tend to over read break consistently.  If you tend to miss high side on short putts even if you haven't hit them softly, and hitting it firm gives you confidence to massively adjust down your read of how much break there will be so now you're reading it correctly for how hard you plan on hitting it, then yeah, hitting it firm will improve your percentages.  But better still would be to improve your reading skills and still hit it to die just past the hole.

[Golfingdad]

I always try to hit my putts to die at the hole (by Erik's definition of "die" - 6-12" past).  Learned it from my Harvey Penick books.  Somebody tells him "never up, never in" and he responds with "100% of putts that go past the hole don't go in either."

However,

Sometimes when I have 3-4' putts with fairly severe right to left break (I'm right handed) I get a little uncomfortable and turn into a rammer.  Something about that specific putt (I don't ram straight putts or left to righters) makes me want to hit it hard.  I'm thinking something like, "well, I know for 100% certainty that it breaks to the left, but I don't know how much, so if I hit it directly at the right edge of the hole there's no way I can miss right, and if I hit it hard enough, it shouldn't have enough time to miss left either."  I think it's just lacking confidence in my read.

[Jimdangles]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I always try to hit my putts to die at the hole (by Erik's definition of "die" - 6-12" past).  Learned it from my Harvey Penick books.  Somebody tells him "never up, never in" and he responds with "100% of putts that go past the hole don't go in either."

However,

Sometimes when I have 3-4' putts with fairly severe right to left break (I'm right handed) I get a little uncomfortable and turn into a rammer.  Something about that specific putt (I don't ram straight putts or left to righters) makes me want to hit it hard.  I'm thinking something like, "well, I know for 100% certainty that it breaks to the left, but I don't know how much, so if I hit it directly at the right edge of the hole there's no way I can miss right, and if I hit it hard enough, it shouldn't have enough time to miss left either."  I think it's just lacking confidence in my read.

I have to imagine there is some scenario that played out to putting it past the hole up a little hill and then back down and into the hole.

I do like that sang though. I seem to leave alot of my putts just short too.