View Single Post
Old 01-08-2013, 01:15 PM
iacas's Avatar
iacas iacas is offline
Double Eagle Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Erie, PA
Years Playing: 5.3
Courses Played: 31
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,737
Niced 2 Times in 2 Posts

Originally Posted by ChrisWoj View Post
Definitely why I said almost as big a gap. It'd take a hell of a day for it to happen - but that chance is so small that its not a whole lot huger than the 800 vs 980. That compression of strokes at an elite level is just... sickening. So. close. Yet so far.
That compression of strokes is exactly why it's much easier for a 980 rated player to beat a 1030 rated player than it is for an 800 to beat a 980. All it might take for the 1030 to lose is one bad hole because they're only a few strokes ahead to begin with.

Originally Posted by duckychucky View Post
What happened to just making harder greens?

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
Doesn't matter. More cluttered greens might make the upshot tougher. But if the player always has a shot at the basket from within the circle (which is a design guideline), the putting constant doesn't change.
That's not what I think he was saying. Put stuff in the way near the basket so that if you don't have a clear lane you aren't going to be looking at a great chance to make the putt. Yes, the clear shots will still be easy, but you'll have fewer and fewer clear shots at the hole.

The odds of having a gently breaking right-to-left uphill putt in golf (generally considered the easiest to make) are small - odds are you're going to have to work around the slopes to get your putt into the hole. Golf greens aren't just all flat with nothing there - the trouble continues onto the greens, and the golfer who can position his ball below and slightly to the right of the hole has an easier time of it than the guy who's always above the hole.

Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
In ball golf, they have looked at hole and ball size and would change it if necessary. But there's no indication their parameters need changing.
They've never really considered making it smaller, but relevant to this discussion they did make it larger and what they found was that it gave an even bigger advantage to the good putters.

It was the opposite of what they thought would happen, but it makes sense: when a good putter missed a putt it was by a little. The slightly larger hole captured it. When a bad putter missed a putt it was by enough that the larger hole still didn't capture it.

So if the same holds true of going to Bullseyes, then you'd discover that shrinking the size of the target would do more to level the playing field than to separate it or spread it out.
Reply With Quote