Is putting too easy? too hard? Just right?

[World Eater]

Imo smaller baskets will likely mean fewer go fors, more layups, and a skill equalization as more long missed by skilled players result in the same tap in 2nd putt that less skilled players will also be dropping in.

...But I like that someone is actually doing research and not just pulling a hunch out of your backside like I just did. Thanks for that.

 

[tomte]

Since I can't determine the circle all the time I rated everything with an obvious putting motion and obviously "going for it" as a putt. But this is definitely a flaw in those numbers.

I wanted to count three putts - but there is only a single one in all those with a very broken putting motion.

 

[DiscJunkie]

If we're comparing ourselves to stick golf (again), then putting is too easy.
If we're talking about regular Joes, most think putting is too hard.

Personally, I don't think there's a problem.
What exactly is the problem?

Are we discussing this again because the best putter on tour wants to make it harder for everyone? If the Pros think putting is too easy, let them work it out. Me and my friends are still having a blast on the same basket that we started on. No change necessary, thanks.

 

[tomte]

Personally, I don't think there's a problem.
What exactly is the problem?

The problem is that we think the pros make about 90% of their putts. The pros think they make 91% of their putts. That seems to be not enough challenge so the first thing that comes to mind is changing the basket.

Turns out the pros only make 60% of their putts. And the baskets are just fine. I think making slightly above 50% is just right for pros.

 

[DavidSauls]

Since I can't determine the circle all the time I rated everything with an obvious putting motion and obviously "going for it" as a putt. But this is definitely a flaw in those numbers.

I wanted to count three putts - but there is only a single one in all those with a very broken putting motion.

Thanks. Obviously, better numbers could be produced by separating putts by distance and, more obviously, it would be a major endeavor to do it.

Very interesting that there was only one 3-putt in the batch, 3-putts being one of my specialties. It's a reminder that top players hit a lot of long putts because they can freely go for them, knowing that if they miss, they'll still make the comeback. Which plays back into this thread, in that if the comebacks weren't virtually guaranteed, they'd presumably lay up more often. As I should.

 

[DiscJunkie]

Thanks. Obviously, better numbers could be produced by separating putts by distance and, more obviously, it would be a major endeavor to do it.

Very interesting that there was only one 3-putt in the batch, 3-putts being one of my specialties. It's a reminder that top players hit a lot of long putts because they can freely go for them, knowing that if they miss, they'll still make the comeback. Which plays back into this thread, in that if the comebacks weren't virtually guaranteed, they'd presumably lay up more often. As I should.

I know it's been thrown out there, but if we make the baskets smaller, the result will be more layups. That's great for scoring separation, but it will be B-O-R-I-N-G.
Which begs the question, which is better for DG, A)scoring separation or B) continuing long runs at putts.
I'll vote for B.

 

[DavidSauls]

I know it's been thrown out there, but if we make the baskets smaller, the result will be more layups. That's great for scoring separation, but it will be B-O-R-I-N-G.
Which begs the question, which is better for DG, A)scoring separation or B) continuing long runs at putts.
I'll vote for B.

I've said that myself, but I think it depends on how much smaller the baskets are.

There should be a threshold, somewhere below current size, where people are still running at the basket.

In fact, one of the courses I play most, Earlewood, has noticeably narrower baskets, and it doesn't produce a flood of layups.

 

[goosefraba1]

I am going to have to go with designing better greens in order to make putting harder. This is much easier to do on course with trees and plenty of elevation. As this sport continues to grow, we will eventually have courses that we consider the top echelon (John Houck has a monopoly on most of these already)... and both the fairways and greens are what will distinguish those courses... not the baskets.

 

[fasteddie]

I'm with goose.

better course/green design is the answer, not smaller baskets.

 

[thrembo]

Me too. If you think putting is to easy, go pro. If you think its too hard, get your ass out there and practice. What we have now is way better than a hole in the ground.

 

[grodney]

I watched a couple youtube rounds and tried to keep track of the putts:
So far I recorded a total of 248 putts:
151 made putts
97 missed putts.
So it is about a 60/40 ratio of made/missed putts (and that ratio never really changed)

In 2002 USDGC, I kept stats for the 16 players in the rounds I caddied. These were all pretty good players, whose scores ended up being 63-83 (and 67-77 other than 3 rounds).

On holes where they putted for birdie, the players made:
65/151 birdie putts (43% made)
81/86 par putts (94% made)
5/5 bogey putts (3-putts)
That's an overall putting percentage of 62.4%.

NOTE this includes ALL putts where a putting motion was used, whether it was 50+ feet or a drop-in, on holes where they putted for birdie.

(On holes where they DIDN'T putt for birdie, I didn't keep putting stats.)

===================================

In 2005 I kept putting stats for 5 of my competitors in Charlotte Weekly Singles rounds. They made 67% of all putts (including drop-ins). They 3-putted 1 time in 90 holes, and they shot 71, 75, 73, 71, 70, which are probably rounds in the 970-1000 range.

===================================

In 2002 I tracked myself for 28 rounds on various Charlotte courses:
I made 44% of putts between 10-30 feet.
I gacked 4 putts under 10 feet.
I made 10 putts over 30 feet.

I was probably shooting 930ish golf at that time, though my putting was far worse than my throwing.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Course design has little to do with this putting question. Tougher greens make approaching tougher, not putting. OB by baskets doesn't make the actual putt more likely to be made or missed, just more punitive if you miss. Only changing the basket in some way actually changes the ratio of the projectile to target zone size consistently on every course regardless of what can be done to design each green.

It's the "catchability" of the target that matters, not what's around it unless you physically block flight path(s) to the target, and that's not considered good design. That being said, the smaller baskets being discussed may not be the best solution to this issue either. If the basket change does not increase comeback misses or require a different putting skill, then simply making the basket smaller will just compress scores with more 2-putts when fewer 30-50 footers are made by pros and at the same time make the game less fun for most players. Lose-lose.

 

[Karl]

Course design has little to do with this putting question. Tougher greens make approaching tougher, not putting. OB by baskets doesn't make the actual putt more likely to be made or missed, just more punitive if you miss. Only changing the basket in some way actually changes the ratio of the projectile to target zone size consistently on every course regardless of what can be done to design each green.

It's the "catchability" of the target that matters, not what's around it unless you physically block flight path(s) to the target, and that's not considered good design. That being said, the smaller baskets being discussed may not be the best solution to this issue either. If the basket change does not increase comeback misses or require a different putting skill, then simply making the basket smaller will just compress scores with more 2-putts when fewer 30-50 footers are made by pros and at the same time make the game less fun for most players. Lose-lose.

And I'll disagree with that concept. Many bg greens have multiple levels or "zones" on which to put a pin. Hit your approach to one of these OTHER zones and the chance (even if you're closer than at the other side of the 'correct zone') of making your putt is slim - due to the wicked curve your putt will have. The direct correlation to this IS to have a tree (or 2) "on the green" (however one defines the "green"...and that can be debated). Maybe a lot of them 'to one side' to allow a 'safe side' (to approach) or a 'risky side'.

Karl

 

[Cgkdisc]

My meaning of "block" means no flight access to the basket at all, not just restricted access such as trees on the green where you have to straddle to the side or arc your putt around them. No problem with objects on the green that you can throw over, around or through.

 

[Timeetyo]

My meaning of "block" means no flight access to the basket at all, not just restricted access such as trees on the green where you have to straddle to the side or arc your putt around them. No problem with objects on the green that you can throw over, around or through.

This is the answer to me, much more so than smaller baskets. The problem I see at the pro level is that so many of those 30-40' shots they are draining are WIDE open with wind as the only obstacle to hitting the putt. Sure - there my be OB behind - but that doesn't matter if you drain it.

Tighten up the area around the green so that those 30+ shots have some obstacles and then we are rewarding the "good" drives / approaches and making those long runs a lot more interesting.

 

[Steve West]

That being said, the smaller baskets being discussed may not be the best solution to this issue either. If the basket change does not increase comeback misses or require a different putting skill, then simply making the basket smaller will just compress scores with more 2-putts when fewer 30-50 footers are made by pros and at the same time make the game less fun for most players. Lose-lose.

It is not at all obvious that smaller baskets would compress scores. Many factors go into whether a scoring spread is made wider or narrower. Often, the results are non-intuitive.

The only parameter that I have found which can fairly reliably be counted on to increase scoring spread is to increase the average score. Therefore, my bet would be that the smaller the basket, the wider the scoring spread.

But, I don't know that for sure, either. None of us will know until we test it.

 

[DiscDraft]

For me this question brings up the idea of the pole hole. A good number of my putts hit chain and stay in, but would not have hit the pole. I am ok with having narrower chains that catch only putts that would come in contact with the pole. This may be impossible to do perfectly, but can be improved.

However, I like that the different baskets at different courses add different challenges. Unique baskets and simply the range of baskets add to the personality of each course.

 

[Karl]

For me this question brings up the idea of the pole hole. A good number of my putts hit chain and stay in, but would not have hit the pole. I am ok with having narrower chains that catch only putts that would come in contact with the pole. This may be impossible to do perfectly, but can be improved.

However, I like that the different baskets at different courses add different challenges. Unique baskets and simply the range of baskets add to the personality of each course.

This is one way of thinking of it (like you said, maybe hard to do), but since we have gravity working for us (always do!) another way to look at it is that "the bottom of the basket" is the goal. And any putt that increases your chance to placing your putter THERE is probably a good one. A really fast putt that needs to hit a pole / chains / ?? may NOT be this type!
Prior to the tech stnds being revised a half dozen years or so ago, technically a top loader would've sufficed for a target. And while I'm not advocating going out to get Maytag as a title sponsor, the idea of having a basket (with our friend Gravity doing his part) as the end point - and not griping when smashed chains don't hold our laser-speed putt - is a good one. In bg gravity allows the ball to find the bottom of the cup. In dg gravity COULD be allowed to allow the disc to find the bottom of the cup...if we allowed it to!

Karl

 

[tomte]

Nice to have more data show up. And even better that it is in the same percentage range (60-70% made putts).

I think the baskets are fine as they are - we probably don't need another basket that catches even better. Two rows of chains are plenty.

I also welcome the idea of having tougher approaches, more difficult "greens". How to do that right is a whole discussion on it's own though.

 

[ian.]

i think its right where it needs to be .. of course sometimes i hate feeling like i had a perfect release and somehow it spitting out but i look at it as part of the game... we are all putting on the same basket so it could happen to anyone.. but of course im also not playing as a way of life so .. :\