Staying below the hole - Brilliant or Bogus?

[natureboy]

10 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

Look at the "OT" box in my last post.  They're AutoCAD "topographies" exported as gray values and then colorized in Photoshop.

Whoops, I thought I had opened it when I saw the charts. AutoCAD is out of my price range, but I might try the excel thing.

Quote

Agreed.  I'm already working on the next iteration of these (using Excel cells as "pixels"), and I'm using average putts to hole out rather than one-putt %.

You might want to use an equation solving simultaneously for one putt % and 3 putt % that way you could use some of Broadie's data on this (he concluded that distance is more important than slope, though extreme slopes do make uphill easier)

It is interesting that even for Broadie's average 1.4* slope, the 3-putt percentage climbs much more rapidly for a given distance downhill than uphill, though still at a fairly low percentage overall out to 20'. I would bet that for poorer putters on tour that 3-putt rate climbs much more quickly than the field average. Average PGA expected putts over 2 starts around ~ 32 ft from the hole which is right around the average proximity for the typical approach distance for PGA pros.

Broadie indicated that high slopes (>2* at the hole) were rare on tour, but does measuring the slope at the hole fully reflect the potential difficulty due to slope of a high contour green? Can't you have a green where a putt from above the hole involves much more average slope than at the hole itself, or is there some rule of agronomy that dictates against this?

Edited May 21, 2016 by natureboy

[natureboy]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

 

I think this is even more extreme than what I had personally interpreted the announcers as implying. In my impressions of what they were saying (in context) when it was brought up I was thinking they meant "leave it below the hole...on average", because I never heard them criticize a player for hitting one really close (< ~ 6ft) - above the hole on the difficult green / pin placement.

Edited May 21, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

10 hours ago, natureboy said:

You might want to use an equation solving simultaneously for one putt % and 3 putt % that way you could use some of Broadie's data on this (he concluded that distance is more important than slope, though extreme slopes do make uphill easier)

10 hours ago, natureboy said:

I think this is even more extreme than what I had personally interpreted the announcers as implying. In my impressions of what they were saying (in context) when it was brought up I was thinking they meant "leave it below the hole...on average", because I never heard them criticize a player for hitting one really close (< ~ 6ft) - above the hole on the difficult green / pin placement.

In other words, you already knew the answer before you posted the topic.

And it's the same as was said in the other thread.

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

In other words, you already knew the answer before you posted the topic.

No, I knew what Broadie had concluded. The 'meme' of below the hole seems so persistent in commentary I was curious what others thought. I wondered if announcers were referencing keeping all putts below the hole or just the center of the shot pattern.

BTW, is your ellipse the 50% shot pattern, 100% or something in-between? It seems more rotated left than I would expect for the pros.

Broadie's analysis may be largely true for most situations, but not all. Also, an average slope over 2* at the hole being rare doesn't automatically mean that there isn't more frequently a larger slope above or below the hole that the pros have to contend with that will affect their expected putts. After all as you say the pros still have fairly large average shot patterns relative to the size of the green and there's potential for ending up on larger contours or tiers 30+ feet from the pin that may be 'effectively' pushed back into 3-putt range given the larger slope.

The effects of slope on stimp are non-linear so some small changes could make a noticeable relative scoring difference particularly by bringing the 3-putt  % in much closer to the pin for downhill putts than than a 'typical' hole.

Quote

Downslope has a much more pronounced effect upon Stimpmeter measurements than does upslope - the steeper the slopes and the faster the cuts, the greater the relative difference. (USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD 1997)

[iacas]

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

No, I knew what Broadie had concluded.

Which is also what I've been saying. You know, Dave and I have done a lot of research on this stuff, too…

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

BTW, is your ellipse the 50% shot pattern, 100% or something in-between? It seems more rotated left than I would expect for the pros.

My ellipse was simply an example, and I don't care much about PGA Tour players.

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

Broadie's analysis may be largely true for most situations, but not all. Also, an average slope over 2* at the hole being rare doesn't automatically mean that there isn't more frequently a larger slope above or below the hole that the pros have to contend with that will affect their expected putts.

A 2° slope anywhere near a flag on the PGA Tour is pretty rare. That's about 3.5% slope. 4° is about 7% slope, of course, and doesn't really exist in the wild for more than small parts of greens (false fronts, tiers, etc.).

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

After all as you say the pros still have fairly large average shot patterns relative to the size of the green and there's potential for ending up on larger contours or tiers 30+ feet from the pin that may be 'effectively' pushed back into 3-putt range given the larger slope.

They're still more likely to two-putt from there than to get up and down from off the green, in a bunker, etc. Being on the green is still advantageous, the vast majority of the time, over aiming to stay below the hole quite a lot.

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

Even 2° slope is uncommon around the hole. The PGA Tour sets pins on 1-2% slopes primarily.

---

So again, you already knew the answer: the importance of staying below the hole is not more important than giving yourself a putt and/or getting close to the hole.

Spoiler

 

Really small sample size (25 golfers of all ability levels, 12 putts from each clock position, and so triangles of 3 for each zone = 75 putts for each distance and wedge combo):

Stimp was about 11.5 and the slope was between 3-4% (4% was from about 9-3 o'clock, 3% more on the uphill side of the hole).

This data is consistent with the data Dave and I have as well, except that we saw a bigger drop-off on the nine-footers. Natalie's smaller test saw a few more people make some 9' that they wouldn't normally make.

The players in her study, as in ours, putted from random positions.

 

Anyway, we have an answer now. Cool. The vast majority of the time, being below the hole doesn't matter.

[Gunther]

24 minutes ago, iacas said:

Which is also what I've been saying. You know, Dave and I have done a lot of research on this stuff, too…

My ellipse was simply an example, and I don't care much about PGA Tour players.

A 2° slope anywhere near a flag on the PGA Tour is pretty rare. That's about 3.5% slope. 4° is about 7% slope, of course, and doesn't really exist in the wild for more than small parts of greens (false fronts, tiers, etc.).

They're still more likely to two-putt from there than to get up and down from off the green, in a bunker, etc. Being on the green is still advantageous, the vast majority of the time, over aiming to stay below the hole quite a lot.

Even 2° slope is uncommon around the hole. The PGA Tour sets pins on 1-2% slopes primarily.

---

So again, you already knew the answer: the importance of staying below the hole is not more important than giving yourself a putt and/or getting close to the hole.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Really small sample size (25 golfers of all ability levels, 12 putts from each clock position, and so triangles of 3 for each zone = 75 putts for each distance and wedge combo):

Stimp was about 11.5 and the slope was between 3-4% (4% was from about 9-3 o'clock, 3% more on the uphill side of the hole).

This data is consistent with the data Dave and I have as well, except that we saw a bigger drop-off on the nine-footers. Natalie's smaller test saw a few more people make some 9' that they wouldn't normally make.

The players in her study, as in ours, putted from random positions.

 

Anyway, we have an answer now. Cool. The vast majority of the time, being below the hole doesn't matter.

I admire the research and all the analytics this thread has generated but damn, it's way too complicated for me.  

See the ball, hit the ball, chase the ball, put it in the hole.  That's how I play golf.  I mean, I think about course management out there, of course, but not to the degree that has been studied.  Pretty incredible stuff but if I had all this stuff in my head on the 1st tee, I'd never break 100.  

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, Gunther said:

I admire the research and all the analytics this thread has generated but damn, it's way too complicated for me.  

See the ball, hit the ball, chase the ball, put it in the hole.  That's how I play golf.  I mean, I think about course management out there, of course, but not to the degree that has been studied.  Pretty incredible stuff but if I had all this stuff in my head on the 1st tee, I'd never break 100.  

Okay DJ. Just cover your ears and look away. 

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

My ellipse was simply an example, and I don't care much about PGA Tour players.

It's also more rotated than I'd expect for ams. I suppose it's more of a 2/3 or 80% ellipse than median proximity. If slope considerations are irrelevant to ams, why are Aimpoint and John Graham emphasizing above / below the hole strategy / perspective?

As far as my reference to pros, the thread was started / written primarily about the PGA 'below the hole' commentary.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

A 2° slope anywhere near a flag on the PGA Tour is pretty rare. That's about 3.5% slope. 4° is about 7% slope, of course, and doesn't really exist in the wild for more than small parts of greens (false fronts, tiers, etc.).

Not all first putts are from near the flag for pros or amateurs.

Given the average proximity list you posted the average first putt distance for the average PGA pro on most par 4's would be ~ 27'. Some will be closer and some will be farther. Given the way downhill affects effective stimp per the USGA it seems that at the high stimps pros face, a relatively small difference in slope at a distance where their first putt is more likely to be could significantly impact cumulative expected putts.

Ams will have even longer first putts on average (but will be putting on much slower greens for the most part).

2 hours ago, iacas said:

They're still more likely to two-putt from there than to get up and down from off the green, in a bunker, etc. Being on the green is still advantageous, the vast majority of the time, over aiming to stay below the hole quite a lot.

I understand relative to off the green  expected score is still better putting. That doesn't mean pros can't also be optimizing their shot pattern location on the green itself somewhat. Possibly a differential strategy depending on the approach club and their relative approach skill vs. putting skill?

It seems possible that for 'tricky' holes the non-linear effect on stimp from greater slope (& contour complexity) effectively compresses the make percentages for all putts (including 3-putts) for each distance if above the hole while effectively extending them if below the hole. This might be a somewhat small effect at individual distances, but cumulatively significant.

I noticed an interesting possible discrepancy with the 'only putt distance matters' expectation in Broadie's approach shot data. The trend implied that pro level players would be centering their median proximity pattern closer to the hole than higher HCPs, but not right on top of it as you'd expect if they were optimizing their chances based solely on distance. At their putting skill level a discrepancy of ~7ft could be significant. You would think - in time - that strategy would evolve to blanket the hole to minimize initial first putt distance. Unless possibly back pin positions outnumber central or forward pin positions on tour?

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Even 2° slope is uncommon around the hole. The PGA Tour sets pins on 1-2% slopes primarily.

---

That's the slope for the 'two foot radius' around the hole. But is a putt from a 3* slope somewhat common ~ 28'+ away from the hole (knobs, ridges, tiers, swales) that due to the high stimp will require a slower than average and therefore more breaking and difficult putt?

2 hours ago, iacas said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Really small sample size (25 golfers of all ability levels, 12 putts from each clock position, and so triangles of 3 for each zone = 75 putts for each distance and wedge combo):

Stimp was about 11.5 and the slope was between 3-4% (4% was from about 9-3 o'clock, 3% more on the uphill side of the hole).

This data is consistent with the data Dave and I have as well, except that we saw a bigger drop-off on the nine-footers. Natalie's smaller test saw a few more people make some 9' that they wouldn't normally make.

The players in her study, as in ours, putted from random positions.

 

 

That's a well-designed study for a kid. You should be proud.

For what we're discussing, I'd rather see the actual O'Clock positions and make % explicitly and by skill level. The grouping and binning could obscure some interesting gradient / relationship details. Since you are close to the source, do you have those? Also the distance gradient only goes out to 9' and given the average proximity for pros for the typical approach distance (~165 yards) the impact of stimp and slope on 3-putt potential at further distances from the hole may matter.

[Mop Bucket]

Personally, as long as I leave myself a somewhat straight, or predictable putt, I'm happy. The only time I feel I left myself in a bad situation is when I'm left with an extreme side-slanting putt that I need to give up the hole on even a short roll. I have no problem putting downhill as long as the break is reasonable, or there isn't a massive tier-change directly behind the hole.

[iacas]

30 minutes ago, natureboy said:

It's also more rotated than I'd expect for ams. I suppose it's more of a 2/3 or 80% ellipse than median proximity.

It would be foolish to suppose anything. It's a tilted oval, and in case you didn't notice, there is no scale.

30 minutes ago, natureboy said:

If slope considerations are irrelevant to ams, why are Aimpoint and John Graham emphasizing above / below the hole strategy / perspective?

Likely because they're considering only one factor: uphill putts break less. But they'll also tell you shorter putts are easier to make, too. And yet, even with the short game, where you can control staying below the hole a bit more, it's still more important to get closer to the hole. Plus, amateurs play greens that are 8-10, typically.

30 minutes ago, natureboy said:

As far as my reference to pros, the thread was started / written primarily about the PGA 'below the hole' commentary.

Cool.

30 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Not all first putts are from near the flag for pros or amateurs.

You don't say…

30 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Given the average proximity list you posted the average first putt distance for the average PGA pro on most par 4's would be ~ 27'. Some will be closer and some will be farther. Given the way downhill affects effective stimp per the USGA it seems that at the high stimps pros face, a relatively small difference in slope at a distance where their first putt is more likely to be could significantly impact cumulative expected putts.

Nope. Turns out it doesn't really. Pros - like amateurs - are pretty good at putting. Expected strokes changes very slowly. The primary contributor is distance from the hole.

30 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Ams will have even longer first putts on average (but will be putting on much slower greens for the most part).

PGA Tour greens rarely top 12. Our indoor putting green hits 12 in the winter, and local country clubs hit 11-12 frequently, and particularly for championships. 8 is slower, 10 is not too slow, 12 is fast, but even on 12s, players putt better - putts hold their lines better and short and medium length putts are easier to make, etc.

30 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I understand relative to off the green  expected score is still better putting. That doesn't mean pros can't also be optimizing their shot pattern location on the green itself somewhat. Possibly a differential strategy depending on the approach club and their relative approach skill vs. putting skill?

Too vague. So "maybe." I'm not interested in going down the typical @natureboy rabbit hole.

30 minutes ago, natureboy said:

It seems possible that for 'tricky' holes the non-linear effect on stimp from greater slope (& contour complexity) effectively compresses the make percentages for all putts (including 3-putts) for each distance if above the hole while effectively extending them if below the hole. This might be a somewhat small effect at individual distances, but cumulatively significant.

I disagree that it can become cumulatively significant. You only play 18 holes in a round, and few greens are going to have significant slopes. At the end of the day you're talking about a "20% make oval" (or whatever % you choose) that's slightly shifted below the hole, and a tenth or twentieth of a stroke shaved by being below the hole or something. Distance matters far more on all but the most extremely sloped greens.

30 minutes ago, natureboy said:

That's the slope for the 'two foot radius' around the hole. But is a putt from a 3* slope somewhat common ~ 28'+ away from the hole (knobs, ridges, tiers, swales) that due to the high stimp will require a slower than average and therefore more breaking and difficult putt?

You're overthinking this, and getting into too many hypotheticals. Slopes of 3°+ are rare on the PGA Tour. That's over a 5% slope. At PGA Tour green speeds, a 6.6% slope doesn't hold a ball. It rolls off.

30 minutes ago, natureboy said:

For what we're discussing, I'd rather see the actual O'Clock positions and make % explicitly and by skill level. The grouping and binning could obscure some interesting gradient / relationship details. Since you are close to the source, do you have those? Also the distance gradient only goes out to 9' and given the average proximity for pros for the typical approach distance (~165 yards) the impact of stimp and slope on 3-putt potential at further distances from the hole may matter.

Yes, but to what end? I'm confident in what I've said, and I have a bunch of data to back it up.

Amateurs are way, way better off hitting the ball on the green first and foremost, and not worrying about where the flag is at all. This is true from 36 handicapper level to PGA Tour level, with a very small shift along that entire range toward favoring uphill putts, but we're talking about a matter of feet. In the Shades of Grey we discuss in the book we wrote, severe downhill putts are very, very light. Rough, bunkers, etc. are all significantly darker, as are longer putts over shorter putts.

---

I've played every course here in Erie, and there's precisely two holes where players are better off staying below the pin. The first is the 11th at Lake View slopes at 5-6% and green speeds can reach 12 for certain events. The course dates back to the 1950s and wouldn't be built with that severe a slope today. The other hole is the 7th at Kahkwa. It's a 5-7% slope too.

These kinds of situations are incredibly rare.

If you're concerned about the PGA Tour, the situations are even more rare. Consider… the 18th hole at Muirfield Village. And… staying below that hole is no bargain either, given the false front.

I'm done now. Got a U.S. Kids Golf event tomorrow, and not at all interested in discussing vague hypotheticals.