"Putting is a huge part of the game."

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Why am i not surprised that my honest response was immediately shouted down as wrong. No ifs ands or buts about it, i'm just totally wrong.

Because you are.

At the risk of you massively misreading me again, why shouldn’t we shout down “2+2=7”?

Your last response was about the wager. Your odds are not even close to the same.

[onthehunt526]

21 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Why am i not surprised that my honest response was immediately shouted down as wrong. No ifs ands or buts about it, i'm just totally wrong.

 

 

 

Actual numbers from my last 2 rounds played on 1 of the 2 courses in my town, par 72 - 6700 yds

Round 1 - 7 GIR, 34 putts, shot 85

Round 2 - 5 GIR, 30 putts, shot 81

Well you putted better in round two. But how far was your first putts in Round 2? I bet you were closer.

[klineka]

21 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Actual numbers from my last 2 rounds played on 1 of the 2 courses in my town, par 72 - 6700 yds

Round 1 - 7 GIR, 34 putts, shot 85

Round 2 - 5 GIR, 30 putts, shot 81

2 rounds is not a large enough sample size to prove a point, but if you want to go that route...

My personal best GIR round - 15 GIR, 36 putts, shot +3 - 74 (Par 71) with two 3 putts (1 birdie)

My personal best putting round -  7 GIR, 28 putts, shot + 6 - 78 (Par 72) with zero 3 putts (2 birdies)

 

3 shots better in relation to par even though it took me 8 more putts. 

[MrGolfguy67]

33 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

Well you putted better in round two.

I had less GIR in round 2 so I should have shot higher according to y'all that think putting is least important. Less GIR but I shot lower because of putting.

[onthehunt526]

2 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I had less GIR in round 2 so I should have shot higher according to y'all that think putting is least important. Less GIR but I shot lower because of putting.

Technically yes. 

But with not hitting those GIR you had shorter first putts. So our point still holds true. It's easier to be closer to the hole from a shorter distance off the green.

[woodzie264]

9 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I had less GIR in round 2 so I should have shot higher according to y'all that think putting is least important. Less GIR but I shot lower because of putting.

I don't think you are going to change your mind at this moment. But I would encourage you to set aside your large 2-round sample size, and read back through the thread later. 

I can tell you the guys here, while they may come across harsh at times, they genuinely care about golf and passing on its truths to the forum folks here. I'd encoursge you to be open to re-reading all of this next week sometime

Edited March 29, 2018 by woodzie264

[Shorty]

1 hour ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I figure either one I'd have the same chance at winning. My guess would be 1 of 5 (20%).

Are you serious or are you merely trolling?

If you are serious then you clearly have absolutely zero understanding of the game.

In the 9 iron challenge v pro I'd say I'd win 0% of the time. 

In the putting I reckon I'd go OK half the time.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Shorty

[The Hook Meister]

The only thing that matters is accuracy! If your not accurate with your shots you won't score. If your shots are wide right or left you tend to have a lot of scrambling to do. If you are always three putting you won't score well. It's accuracy not ball striking vs putting.

[MrGolfguy67]

11 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

But with not hitting those GIR you had shorter first putts. 

You say that like you actually know, but you don't - you're guessing. Basically making something up that fits your agenda.

10 minutes ago, Shorty said:

Are you serious or are you merely trolling?

If you are serious then you clearly have absolutely zero understanding of the game

I'm serious. Your opinion on what my level of understanding is but i can assure you its likely higher than yours.

[Shorty]

19 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

 

I'm serious. Your opinion on what my level of understanding is but i can assure you its likely higher than yours.

You believe that from 180 yards out you are as accurate as a touring professional a 5th of the time. Yet you "assure" me that it is I that am deluded.

Here's another hypothetical:

You are at a pro tournament and you are practice putting for 15 minutes alongside 1 dozen or so pros. How many casual observers standing 20 feet away from the green notice that your putting is in no way pro standard. Before that, you were on the practice tee and hit 20 shots at a180 yard target. What percentage of the 200 observers notice that you are not as good as the guys around you?

I'm saying perhaps 3% on the green and 100% at the practice fairway.

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by Shorty

[MrGolfguy67]

Just now, Shorty said:

You believe that from 180 yards out you are as accurate as a touring professional. Yet you "assure" me that it is I that am deluded.

 

I absolutely did not say that, your reading comprehension is terrible. I said my guess would be 1 out of 5 (20%). How you equate that to me saying i'm as accurate as a touring pro is beyond my understanding.

[Shorty]

6 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I absolutely did not say that, your reading comprehension is terrible. I said my guess would be 1 out of 5 (20%). How you equate that to me saying i'm as accurate as a touring pro is beyond my understanding.

Yes - corrected

But you reckon over 9 holes from 180 yards you'd win one in 5, when it would almost certainly be 1 in 100 or less.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Shorty

[iacas]

1 hour ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I had less GIR in round 2 so I should have shot higher according to y'all that think putting is least important. Less GIR but I shot lower because of putting.

Two putting from 60 feet is better putting than making a five footer. Counting putts and things like GIR without proximity, etc. is almost pointless.

You think two rounds are enough to draw a sample but it’s nowhere near enough data.

52 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I'm serious. Your opinion on what my level of understanding is but i can assure you its likely higher than yours.

Buddy, I can confidently say I know a ton more than you about this. But you’re close minded and I’m done. You’ve shown NO capacity or willingness to learn.

You’re ignorant and worse yet are confident and comfortable being so.

P.S. The 180 yard challenge was nine holes (shots). You win that basically never.

[billchao]

1 hour ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I had less GIR in round 2 so I should have shot higher according to y'all that think putting is least important. Less GIR but I shot lower because of putting.

Actually, no, not necessarily. Besides the obvious problem that two rounds is not statistically significant, less GIR for anyone with a decent short game typically leads to less putts because the first putt on a green is typically closer to the hole. A decent putting day to convert a few of those up and downs can offset the advantage of more GIR if your first putt is typically 40' away.

Most people get the ball closer to the hole on average from shorter distances, excluding hazards and odd lies. So your good putting round might not actually be based solely on your putting at all.

That's the problem with using putting stats based on number instead of proximity. It gives equal weight to all putts, even though it's clear to anyone who plays golf that a 1-putt from 30' is significantly harder than a 1-putt from 3'.

[MrGolfguy67]

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

Buddy, I can confidently say I know a ton more than you about this.

 

I was not responding to you, I was responding to Shorty.

[Shorty]

15 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I was not responding to you, I was responding to Shorty.

Does it matter? You think you win 9 holes from 180 yards out 1 in 5 times. That is the most telling thing about your delusion. And saying things like "believe me" or "i can tell you" or  "i can confidently say" or "more than you know" do not add weight to an argument, they merely underline your intransigence and stubbornness.

[MrGolfguy67]

Actually to win i would just need to be closer on 5 holes out of 9. So if the pro shut me out 9 holes to zero the other 4 times I would end up being closer on 5 of the 45 holes (11%). If the pro won the other 4 times 8 holes to 1 the final total would be 9 holes won by me (20%), 36 for the pro (80%).

Edited March 30, 2018 by MrGolfguy67

[woodzie264]

10 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Actually to win i would just need to be closer on 5 holes out of 9. So if the pro shut me out 9 holes to zero the other 4 times I would end up being closer on 5 of the 45 holes (11%). If the pro won the other 4 times 8 holes to 1 the final total would be 9 holes won by me (20%), 36 for the pro (80%).

I get how you guys are trying to establish which skill most distiguishes us from Tour Pros by comparing your hypothetical performance against them, but I think your side argument with Shorty is distracting from the thread's topic....IMO 

Edited March 30, 2018 by woodzie264