"Putting is a huge part of the game."

[GrandStranded]

4 minutes ago, woodzie264 said:

I think your side argument with Shorty is distracting from the thread's topic....IMO 

Actually, if you think about it, @MrGolfguy67 IS the topic... LOL

[woodzie264]

1 minute ago, GrandStranded said:

Actually, if you think about it, @MrGolfguy67 IS the topic... LOL

I suppose that's why my interest is waning... 

[Vinsk]

7 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

I have done that, if they are not adequate for you then im not sure what to tell you. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I know you’re not actually reading this thread but just responding to be responding. You either simply don’t understand the data @iacas has presented and the scenarios given, or you’re alarmingly stubborn. Then a quote occurred to me that fits you to a tee and made me realize something about you. So, for all of you who have so elequemtly dismantled@MrGolfguy67

“You can’t reason someone out of a position who hasn’t reasoned himself into it”

And there it is. Now go practice your 20’ putts all you want.

[MrGolfguy67]

Dismantled? LOL. You guys are precious.

I'm on one side of this debate, others are arguing the other side. Some of y'all are taking this way too serious and some are name calling and making it personal. Every one needs to chill out.

 

 

[Vinsk]

13 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Dismantled? LOL. You guys are precious.

I'm on one side of this debate, others are arguing the other side. Some of y'all are taking this way too serious and some are name calling and making it personal. Every one needs to chill out.

 

 

Personal? Not at all. Name calling? Nope. The discussion is putting importance vs ball striking. You’ve repeatedly stated ‘your opinion, your experience.’ No numbers, no data, no logic to support your side. Being able to recall a round here and there where putting was essential does not substantiate your side. It’s been said occurrences can happen but we’re tslking about long term, the norm.

You can say you took a hit on 15 when the dealer was showing a 6..but just because you won doesn’t mean that’s the play to make as the norm or long term. Do you understand this? 

[MrGolfguy67]

41 years is not long term enough for you? I'm never going to be able to satisfy you then.

[BaconNEggs]

At this point I think he's just trolling. 

If he's not, then we're either getting some Dunning-Kruger effect here, or some serious backfire effect. Either way, this whole thread seems to be an exercise in futility, because he quite literally refuses to even entertain the possibility that he is wrong. This isn't an opinion issue. We're not debating what color looks best on Tiger. 

He's been presented with mounds of indisputable statistical evidence that he is wrong, and instead of addressing it, he sidesteps it with defenses of "in my experience" and "I know better." 

I don't have a dog in this fight, I suspect were he not on the defensive in this thread he would have answered the hypotheticals honestly and differently, but it is what it is, he's staked out his position and no amount of facts or evidence otherwise will cause him to change your mind. 2+2 = 7 because he knows it does. Don't go crying about how you never said that-- we get it. You never literally said 2+2 = 7. You may as well have, though.  

1 minute ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

41 years is not long term enough for you? I'm never going to be able to satisfy you then.

This isn't an argument. You haven't presented any facts or evidence. Your age isn't evidence of anything. In an argument where actual statistics showing how wrong you are have been presented, that you continue to refer back to your age and personal experience as if it means anything is actually insulting to the people who are trying to show you how wrong you are. 

Again, people are showing you why 2+2 = 4, and you're saying that you've done math for 41 years and you know 2+2 = 7. It's insulting. 

 

[MrGolfguy67]

Actually what's happening is y'all are totally dismissing my point of view, not giving it any credibility or respect at all. Credibility and respect I deserve as a human being presenting my side of things. Y'all are trying to force your point of view down my throat. And then getting very upset because I won't fall in line and march in step with your line of thinking. I've answered the hypothetical questions honestly, but again since my answers don't line up with y'alls way of thinking they are being totally dismissed.

[GrandStranded]

@MrGolfguy67 this thread is becoming a classic, and I have to tip my cap to you for that. It's now gone 8 pages, and you're still standing, swinging back. I'm not going to say I agree with you, if you look back, you'll see I don't. But I have to admit, I'm starting to get a kick out of how you're dealing with some of the usual "pile on" guys I've noticed on this site. I'm pretty new here, but I learned very early there are people here who wait to see what the prevailing opinion is on a subject, then pile on, basically repeating the same argument(s) given earlier. I've never seen them take an unpopular view on a subject here, only offer snarky comments once they feel the issue has been decided. Sort of like the young kid who watches his friend win a fight, and then goes over and kicks the kid who's down on the ground when everyone else is walking away. At this point, all I can say is, if they keep coming to pile on, have fun with them.

Edited March 30, 2018 by GrandStranded

[onthehunt526]

7 minutes ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Actually what's happening is y'all are totally dismissing my point of view, not giving it any credibility or respect at all. Credibility and respect I deserve as a human being presenting my side of things. Y'all are trying to force your point of view down my throat. And then getting very upset because I won't fall in line and march in step with your line of thinking. I've answered the hypothetical questions honestly, but again since my answers don't line up with y'alls way of thinking they are being totally dismissed.

Let me ask you a non-hypothetical question.

If putting is such a huge part of the game, where does driving and approach shots rank to you?

3 minutes ago, GrandStranded said:

@MrGolfguy67 this thread is becoming a classic, and I have to tip my cap to you for that. It's now gone 8 pages, and you're still standing, swinging back. I'm not going to say I agree with you, if you look back, you'll see I don't. But I have to admit, I'm starting to get a kick out of how you're dealing with some of the usual "pile on" guys I've noticed on here. I'm pretty new here, but I learnrd very early there are people here who wait to see what the prevailing opinion is on a subject, then pile on, basically repeating the same argument(s) given earlier. I've never seen them take an unpopular view on a subject here, only offer snarky comments once they feel the issue has been decided. Sort of like the young kid who watches his friend win a fight, and then goes over and kicks the kid who's down on the ground when everyone else is walking away. At this point, all I can say is, as long as they keep coming to pile on, have fun with it.

What @GrandStranded is getting at, is it's okay to have an unpopular opinion, if you have the facts to back it up. 

Hell, I've been on this site nearly 11 years now and I sometimes have unpopular opinions on topics. But I back up my opinion with facts. Then the usual crowd, give their opinion, say okay, Shane has some facts to back this up, and create a counterpoint with other facts. 

If you had a sample size of say 20 rounds... We'd say okay... He's got a larger sample size, and we'd all be like "hell, you're a decent putter" or something of the sort.

[MuniGrit]

In a different thread the verdict based on the math decided an 8 handicap could putt for DJ and he would win golf tournaments on the tour. My question is at what handicap is that not the case anymore? 10? 12?18?

[Shorty]

1 hour ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

41 years is not long term enough for you? I'm never going to be able to satisfy you then.

Doing the same thing 41 times means zero in terms of your personal evolution as a golf strategist or in terms of your understanding.

You may as well have started playing last week.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

41 years is not long term enough for you? I'm never going to be able to satisfy you then.

41 years believing 2+2=7 is not an argument.

1 hour ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

Actually what's happening is y'all are totally dismissing my point of view, not giving it any credibility or respect at all. Credibility and respect I deserve as a human being presenting my side of things. Y'all are trying to force your point of view down my throat. And then getting very upset because I won't fall in line and march in step with your line of thinking. I've answered the hypothetical questions honestly, but again since my answers don't line up with y'alls way of thinking they are being totally dismissed.

a) how much respect does 2+2=7 deserve?

b) You may have answered honestly, but your answer was incorrect. You will not win the 180-yard challenge ever, basically. You’ll win the putting challenge relatively often.

It has nothing to do with respect. You’re just wrong.

1 hour ago, GrandStranded said:

@MrGolfguy67 this thread is becoming a classic, and I have to tip my cap to you for that. It's now gone 8 pages, and you're still standing, swinging back. I'm not going to say I agree with you, if you look back, you'll see I don't. But I have to admit, I'm starting to get a kick out of how you're dealing with some of the usual "pile on" guys I've noticed on this site. I'm pretty new here, but I learned very early there are people here who wait to see what the prevailing opinion is on a subject, then pile on, basically repeating the same argument(s) given earlier. I've never seen them take an unpopular view on a subject here, only offer snarky comments once they feel the issue has been decided. Sort of like the young kid who watches his friend win a fight, and then goes over and kicks the kid who's down on the ground when everyone else is walking away. At this point, all I can say is, if they keep coming to pile on, have fun with them.

Uhhh, no. Plenty will attest to that being far from accurate.

Many here are not ignorant though. They’ve read LSW and/or ESC. They understand the FACTS here.

They're not “piling on.” They’re trying different ways of getting through to a close-minded, ignorant golfer who thinks 41 years is “proof” his incorrect understanding is valid.

1 hour ago, MuniGrit said:

In a different thread the verdict based on the math decided an 8 handicap could putt for DJ and he would win golf tournaments on the tour. My question is at what handicap is that not the case anymore? 10? 12?18?

Not the topic here. You’re still wrong on that one, @MuniGrit. Your evidence amounted to “nuh uh because I said so.”

[freshmanUTA]

23 hours ago, CR McDivot said:

23% GIR is not "most" - more like less than 1/4... but yes I do practice >20 footers. Concentrate mostly on under 10 footers. I am a high handicapper because my approaches are typically near misses with mid to long irons (blame it on my age and only playing 20 or so rounds a year).

Scenario #1 with 36 puts and 25% GIR = +12 Make those missed GIRs one chip and one putt = even!

Scenario #2 all GIR and 36 putts = even. Cut half the two putts to one = -9.

Silly scenarios!

Dude, hitting <25% GIR is the reason you score so high... period.

[MuniGrit]

27 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Not the topic here. You’re still wrong on that one, @MuniGrit. Your evidence amounted to “nuh uh because I said so.”

Isn't the topic about putting being a large part of the game? Isn't this thread you arguing with your minions that putting is not? This seems pretty related to your claim that a touring pro can win with an 8 handicap putting for him. Now I'm trying to understand the math and figure out where the over under line is on how bad can a player be to win putting for a touring pro? That could let us all know how huge or not huge putting is in the game.

[freshmanUTA]

8 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

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

You, nor i, not @iacas (no offense) would ever, and i mean EVER, win a 9 hole competition from 180 yards vs a tour pro. 

6 hours 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.

it’s not good practice to delete words from a quote to make your response seem less stupid

4 hours 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%).

this doesn’t make sense... you’re saying just because you need to win 5/9 holes, the pro would shut you out 9 holes to none so somehow you’re able to win 1 hole the other 4 times you play? what? you automatically somehow have a 20% chance of winning? buddy, YOU WILL NEVER BE AS ACCURATE OF AN IRON PLAYER AS A TOURING PROFESSIONAL. i don’t know how much clearer it can be.

[b101]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

Two putting from 60 feet is better putting than making a five footer.

Well, now I've actually learnt something from this thread - assume this is based on Strokes Gained?

3 hours ago, MrGolfguy67 said:

41 years is not long term enough for you? I'm never going to be able to satisfy you then.

I'm 30, does that mean I know more about the game than McIlroy, Thomas, Rahm, Spieth etc? Just not a valid argument. Your 41 years of casually playing doesn't equate to Erik's experience as a professional researcher, teacher etc.

9 hours 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

And the 2 extra GIR were probably from further away, meaning you three putted one of them, whereas you had 2 nGIR where you were able to scramble and get your first putt closer to the hole. Proximity to the hole still matters. Compare playing the same hole twice:

First time, hit the fairway, make it onto the front edge towards a back pin, three putt from 70 feet. Bogey.

Second time, hit the fairway, come up twenty yards short, pitch to within ten feet, miss the putt. Bogey.

One has a three putt and a GIR, one has a two putt and a nGIR. Which person putted better? Which person took more putts? Putts per round simply isn't a useful stat when viewed in isolation.

FYI, the answers is that neither putted better and first person took more putts. But, I'd have the first player's game as I've got a greater chance of two putting from 70 feet than I do getting up and down from 20 yards short. This also assumes that player two's inferior long game meant that they managed to leave themselves in a safer spot, not in a bunker, deep rough, water or any other hazard that tends to surround a green. Greens are safe, which is why we score better when we hit them.

[onthehunt526]

1 hour ago, b101 said:

Well, now I've actually learnt something from this thread - assume this is based on Strokes Gained?

I'm 30, does that mean I know more about the game than McIlroy, Thomas, Rahm, Spieth etc? Just not a valid argument. Your 41 years of casually playing doesn't equate to Erik's experience as a professional researcher, teacher etc.

And the 2 extra GIR were probably from further away, meaning you three putted one of them, whereas you had 2 nGIR where you were able to scramble and get your first putt closer to the hole. Proximity to the hole still matters. Compare playing the same hole twice:

First time, hit the fairway, make it onto the front edge towards a back pin, three putt from 70 feet. Bogey.

Second time, hit the fairway, come up twenty yards short, pitch to within ten feet, miss the putt. Bogey.

One has a three putt and a GIR, one has a two putt and a nGIR. Which person putted better? Which person took more putts? Putts per round simply isn't a useful stat when viewed in isolation.

FYI, the answers is that neither putted better and first person took more putts. But, I'd have the first player's game as I've got a greater chance of two putting from 70 feet than I do getting up and down from 20 yards short. This also assumes that player two's inferior long game meant that they managed to leave themselves in a safer spot, not in a bunker, deep rough, water or any other hazard that tends to surround a green. Greens are safe, which is why we score better when we hit them.

This italicized comment is what we're trying to get across. Yes, sometimes you'll hit a GIR and have a 3-putt bogey, happens a lot. 

Now if you are hitting the ball to a proximity of say a 35' average hitting 12 greens and 3-putting three times, Go work on your putting. In that case your ball striking is pretty solid (12 greens is pretty darn good actually), and your putting needs some work.

@MrGolfguy67 I'm not a great putter. I'm decent, not great. I average around 31 putts per round, with an average first putt of around 14' (I only average 7 Greens per round)... Is 31 putts horrible if you look at it itself? No. Is it great when you add my average first-putt distance? No. It's about average, but it could be better.

If 15' is basically a 1 in 4 make percentage. So if I make 1 in 4. That's 7 putts every 4 holes or 31.5 putts per round. So that's where I'm at.