You Should Watch Your Partner's Putts Roll to a Stop

[rdsandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

No, it is not dropping any faster.

Acceleration (gravity) is distance/time^2.

I'm not addressing your conclusion, but isn't d=(1/2)at^2 the correct formula?

Which would make a=2d/t^2  ?

No?

The "a" due to gravity is a constant, 32 ft/sec/sec, so yes you're right 32=2d/t^2 but usually you put the dependent variable on the left of the equation, so if you're trying to find the time it takes an object to drop it's t=(d/16)^.5. if your're trying to determine the distance traveled over a time it's d=16*t^2. All this is assuming that the object was initially at rest.

[iacas]

I'm not addressing your conclusion, but isn't d=(1/2)at^2 the correct formula?

Which would make a=2d/t^2  ?

No?

No, I was just pointing out that the units are of the type distance/time^2.

Whether that's meters per second squared or feet per millisecond squared or whatever you want to say, the units are "distance" per "time squared."

[turtleback]

No, I was just pointing out that the units are of the type distance/time^2.

Whether that's meters per second squared or feet per millisecond squared or whatever you want to say, the units are "distance" per "time squared."

Ah, I see.  You didn't say you were limiting your statement to the units not the value, hence the confusion.  But it is cleared up now, I think.

[MEfree]

Let's consider a certain 20-foot putt that breaks 32 inches. Of that 32 inches, 6 inches of break occur in the last 5 feet. In other words, five feet out from the hole, the ball is traveling at a spot six inches from the center of the cup.

So the last 25% of the putt's distance accounts for less than 19% of the putt's break.

Did my point about how the last 25% of a 20-foot putt accounted for less than 19% of the break not get any responses? Did you read it, @boil3rmak3r? The last inch tells you nothing. The last six inches barely tell you anything at all.

Does the putt you are talking about have more slope in the first 75% and less slope in the last 25%?  If so, then you are stacking the deck a bit against the OP.  If not, then what you and I seem to understand about gravity and time does not hold true, or am I missing something?

He's not wrong, but neither are you. Gravity is a constant (at least, within reason, given the variations in height of a putting green, the mass of the earth and the golf ball, etc.).

Gravity affects putts at the end of the putt "more" because you're both using different ways of measuring things.

The first five feet of a 30-foot putt are affected by gravity LESS than the last five feet because of the difference in TIME. The ball will go through the first five feet in a much shorter period of time.

It's not really on topic, though.

While OP may have overstated his case, this seems to support the notion that you are going to learn more from looking at the last few feet of someones putt rather than the first few feet.

[boil3rmak3r]

Does the putt you are talking about have more slope in the first 75% and less slope in the last 25%?  If so, then you are stacking the deck a bit against the OP.  If not, then what you and I seem to understand about gravity and time does not hold true, or am I missing something? While OP may have overstated his case, this seems to support the notion that you are going to learn more from looking at the last few feet of someones putt rather than the first few feet.

+1. Thanks for posting. I agree that the "lumpy doughnut" makes my last inch comment wrong, but I'm really surprised that folks are saying that watching an actual ball roll near the hole is not that important. @iacas, I would ask you this. Would you make more 8' putts if you watched other balls roll toward the hole, or if you just used Aimpoint?

[iacas]

Does the putt you are talking about have more slope in the first 75% and less slope in the last 25%?  If so, then you are stacking the deck a bit against the OP.  If not, then what you and I seem to understand about gravity and time does not hold true, or am I missing something?

You're missing something, and you should take an AimPoint class to learn a bit of it. The putt(s) I cited had the same exact amount of slope throughout the entire putt.

While OP may have overstated his case, this seems to support the notion that you are going to learn more from looking at the last few feet of someones putt rather than the first few feet.

I don't think anyone has suggested you look at the first few feet of a putt.

+1. Thanks for posting. I agree that the "lumpy doughnut" makes my last inch comment wrong, but I'm really surprised that folks are saying that watching an actual ball roll near the hole is not that important.

It isn't "that" important, no. Is it at least a little important? Yes. But please define "that" as used above. Get my point? We're all using words that have a certain meaning or strength to us. I demonstrated in numbers that the last 25% of a putt accounted for < 19% of the putt's break. So that's how I'm defining "that" when used to modify "important" in this particular case.

@iacas, I would ask you this. Would you make more 8' putts if you watched other balls roll toward the hole, or if you just used Aimpoint?

I'll take AimPoint.

The middle of the putt matters quite a bit more than you seem to be giving credit. It's easier to see the ball CURVING toward the end, because it's moving slower, but the middle of the putt matters quite a bit.

You don't seem to have read my post above: a ball does not always break down the fall line. Only putts hit from very close to the fall line will end up going down the fall line at the end of their roll. Putts hit from more than a small angle to straight will still likely be going at a different angle than straight downhill.

Phil watches a short putt go by the hole because it's covering virtually the same ground he's going to have to putt over on his come-backer.

I use AimPoint, and I watch others putt, too. Without getting into detail, it sometimes helps me determine something, one of the AimPoint inputs. But I really, really don't care about the end of their putts - just their initial starting direction, and where the ball ended up (i.e. total break). I can basically "reverse engineer" their putt to pull out some of the "inputs."

[Gunther]

You're missing something, and you should take an AimPoint class to learn a bit of it. The putt(s) I cited had the same exact amount of slope throughout the entire putt. I don't think anyone has suggested you look at the first few feet of a putt. It isn't "that" important, no. Is it at least a little important? Yes. But please define "that" as used above. Get my point? We're all using words that have a certain meaning or strength to us. I demonstrated in numbers that the last 25% of a putt accounted for < 19% of the putt's break. So that's how I'm defining "that" when used to modify "important" in this particular case.   I'll take AimPoint. The middle of the putt matters quite a bit more than you seem to be giving credit. It's easier to see the ball CURVING toward the end, because it's moving slower, but the middle of the putt matters quite a bit. You don't seem to have read my post above: a ball does not always break down the fall line. Only putts hit from very close to the fall line will end up going down the fall line at the end of their roll. Putts hit from more than a small angle to straight will still likely be going at a different angle than straight downhill. Phil watches a short putt go by the hole because it's covering virtually the same ground he's going to have to putt over on his come-backer. I use AimPoint, and I watch others putt, too. Without getting into detail, it sometimes helps me determine something, one of the AimPoint inputs. But I really, really don't care about the end of their putts - just their initial starting direction, and where the ball ended up (i.e. total break). I can basically "reverse engineer" their putt to pull out some of the "inputs."

I haven't taken the class but I daresay even Adam Scott would prefer to see a ball roll on his line from 8' than use Aimpoint. Definitely think you're in the minority here. No better way to determine how a putt will behave than to actually watch one.

[iacas]

I haven't taken the class but I daresay even Adam Scott would prefer to see a ball roll on his line from 8' than use Aimpoint. Definitely think you're in the minority here. No better way to determine how a putt will behave than to actually watch one.

If you get to watch the same exact putt, yes. If you get to watch some other random putt hit from some other random direction at who knows what speed… then less can be determined.

I was given the choice between the two. I'd choose the entire AimPoint method of reading putts over just watching a putt approach the hole from some random direction because I can get a pretty precise read almost all the time with AimPoint, and considerably less information watching a putt roll to the hole from some direction and at some varying pace.

If I got to watch a putt hit toward the hole from very close to my putt's location and with close to my speed, I'd choose that, if for no other reason than it lets me be lazy.

P.S. I know a fair bit more about AimPoint than Adam Scott.

P.P.S. I also don't care about the "minority" argument. The majority of golfers haven't taken AimPoint, and "majority" isn't always a great indicator of what is correct. The old ball flight laws are a great example of that. There was a time - and we may still be living in it - when the majority would have said the ball started in the direction of the path.

[Gunther]

If you get to watch the same exact putt, yes. If you get to watch some other random putt hit from some other random direction at who knows what speed… then less can be determined. I was given the choice between the two. I'd choose the entire AimPoint method of reading putts over just watching a putt approach the hole from some random direction because I can get a pretty precise read almost all the time with AimPoint, and considerably less information watching a putt roll to the hole from some direction and at some varying pace. If I got to watch a putt hit toward the hole from very close to my putt's location and with close to my speed, I'd choose that, if for no other reason than it lets me be lazy. P.S. I know a fair bit more about AimPoint than Adam Scott. P.P.S. I also don't care about the "minority" argument. The majority of golfers haven't taken AimPoint, and "majority" isn't always a great indicator of what is correct. The old ball flight laws are a great example of that. There was a time - and we may still be living in it - when the majority would have said the ball started in the direction of the path.

I gotcha and would agree. I understood the OP's original point but when he offered that challenge, I interpreted it to mean on the same line, same distance, in essence, the same putt. Couldn't imagine anyone not opting for that in favor of reading the green. But sure, coming from 90° different direction, I wouldn't rely on it very much at all.

[saevel25]

I gotcha and would agree. I understood the OP's original point but when he offered that challenge, I interpreted it to mean on the same line, same distance, in essence, the same putt. Couldn't imagine anyone not opting for that in favor of reading the green. But sure, coming from 90° different direction, I wouldn't rely on it very much at all.

I don't know. Ever see two guys hit the ball OB left, and then the third guy hits a huge push or slice right? Just saying, I rather not watch a putt not go in. Also, if the guy misses high, lets say a good 6 inch miss-read. I don't think that would help many people. Most people would remember the path the ball took. So, yea, I rather just read my own putts.

[Gunther]

I don't know. Ever see two guys hit the ball OB left, and then the third guy hits a huge push or slice right? Just saying, I rather not watch a putt not go in. Also, if the guy misses high, lets say a good 6 inch miss-read. I don't think that would help many people. Most people would remember the path the ball took. So, yea, I rather just read my own putts.

Interesting take but putts a bit different than other shots since you're trying to read what the golf course will do to your ball. I guess to some degree that's true with other shots as well, I.e., which way it'll bounce or spin upon landing. I'll always watch for that putt on my line and hope they hit a good one. If they push an 8' putt 3' off line or hit it 5' past, then yes, I'd have to study it a bit more.

[Golfingdad]

I gotcha and would agree. I understood the OP's original point but when he offered that challenge, I interpreted it to mean on the same line, same distance, in essence, the same putt. Couldn't imagine anyone not opting for that in favor of reading the green. But sure, coming from 90° different direction, I wouldn't rely on it very much at all.

Doesn't even have to be that drastic. Consider two putts that are the same length (say 10') and only 3 or 4 feet apart. There might be only about 30 degrees difference, but if the fall line happens to be between the two putts, they will break in opposite directions. You see his putt break 3" left so you aim just outside right ... And miss 4" right.

[Gunther]

No argument -- I assumed happy path: same putt, good putt. I'd much prefer to get my read from that than try to read the green without that knowledge.

[dsc123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Doesn't even have to be that drastic. Consider two putts that are the same length (say 10') and only 3 or 4 feet apart. There might be only about 30 degrees difference, but if the fall line happens to be between the two putts, they will break in opposite directions. You see his putt break 3" left so you aim just outside right ... And miss 4" right.

No argument -- I assumed happy path: same putt, good putt. I'd much prefer to get my read from that than try to read the green without that knowledge.

That's a pretty rare occurrence, though.

[Gunther]

Sure; my post really was only in the context of the challenge @Boil3rmak3r made to @Iacas. My interpretation of said challenge was that @iacas had 2 choices: 1. Watch 8' putts from the spot he would putt or use Aimpoint sans the benefit of that read. I was surprised that @iacas would opt for Aimpoint. I believe I misinterpreted the options.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

That's a pretty rare occurrence, though.

Sure; my post really was only in the context of the challenge @Boil3rmak3r made to @Iacas. My interpretation of said challenge was that @iacas had 2 choices: 1. Watch 8' putts from the spot he would putt or use Aimpoint sans the benefit of that read. I was surprised that @iacas would opt for Aimpoint. I believe I misinterpreted the options.

Or I did. But that's cleared up now.

[MEfree]

Let's consider a certain 20-foot putt that breaks 32 inches. Of that 32 inches, 6 inches of break occur in the last 5 feet. In other words, five feet out from the hole, the ball is traveling at a spot six inches from the center of the cup.

So the last 25% of the putt's distance accounts for less than 19% of the putt's break.

You're missing something, and you should take an AimPoint class to learn a bit of it. The putt(s) I cited had the same exact amount of slope throughout the entire putt.

I don't think anyone has suggested you look at the first few feet of a putt.

It isn't "that" important, no. Is it at least a little important? Yes. But please define "that" as used above. Get my point? We're all using words that have a certain meaning or strength to us. I demonstrated in numbers that the last 25% of a putt accounted for < 19% of the putt's break. So that's how I'm defining "that" when used to modify "important" in this particular case.

So what is it that I am missing?  I see that you stated that the last 25% of "a certain" 20 foot putt accounted for only 6/32 of the break, but you really didn't give enough detail to prove (or even demonstrate in numbers) that this is so.  Is it because the first part of the putt has broken towards the fall line and the last part is more down the fall line than the first part?

[iacas]

So what is it that I am missing?  I see that you stated that the last 25% of "a certain" 20 foot putt accounted for only 6/32 of the break, but you really didn't give enough detail to prove (or even demonstrate in numbers) that this is so.  Is it because the first part of the putt has broken towards the fall line and the last part is more down the fall line than the first part?

It's a fact. The results of computer modeling that's dead on accurate. This particular putt is never within 80 degrees of the fall line. I don't know what you're missing. These numbers demonstrate fairly clearly that the last part of a putt isn't more important than other parts of the putt. Perhaps you are not considering that when a putt has already broken 26 inches the angle it is taking has changed and perceived break is larger than actual break. It would take far too long for me to explain all of the physics and math in this. Trust it, or don't. People are too wishy-washy about putting and treat it too much as an art form when green reading can really be resolved by learning and applying a few very simple skills.