So you want to make the basket smaller for Pros? (No, we don't.) Here's how we do it.

[JedV]

Originally Posted by davetherocketguy

Hmmm maybe Godwins Law needs to now include "Trump Supporters." Not really an accurate or fair comparison but w/e....

These references are brilliant. Definitely appear to be slipping under the radar.

[Steve West]

Originally Posted by oldmandiscer

Same thing with McBeth and his 18 under. Really that shouldn't happen.

It should have been 15 under. You already knew that.

If you insist that all holes must have a good chance of birdie, fifteen under is going to happen sometimes, no matter the size of the basket.

[hiflyer]

Originally Posted by oldmandiscer

Same thing with McBeth and his 18 under. Really that shouldn't happen.

Didn't he miss a couple putts, and was just able to make up for them later?
I may be remembering incorrectly. I neither went back to watch it again, nor look up the stats for that round.

So, provided the preceding was true, while -18 may be the "perfect" score, it wasn't perfect putting that got him there.

[thirtydirtybirds]

I shot a +9 yesterday. Maybe instead of making baskets smaller, we make players more like me. You can come watch me not make putts live, it’s exhilarating to watch.

[Jugular]

Choosing a single tournament to assess this just isn't enough. For example, someone hitting 100% C1X for one of our great C2 putters could just mean a half dozen 15 foot putts, from those instances where they're missing a 45 footer and it rolls away too far to be a tap in. Theoretically 100% C1X could comprise 0 putts. I don't see how a basket can be designed to make 15 footers difficult for the top pros without making it a bit of a farce.

This is why I say you're torturing the statistics, you talk about make rates at 25ft and equate that to C1X putting and then look at the stats all within one round. The one set of stats I found compelling where the Dickerson on different baskets where it made approximately 10% difference (we don't know how many were spit outs!), but you then said that a small basket wouldn't get that small so the difference seems likely to be less, at which point, what is the point, when like I say I'd enjoy quite a wide range of make %ges and I would guess there are others who share my view.

Scores against par are totally irrelevant to the discussion, please stop going back to that well. It shows you're not engaging with the subject honestly.

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by Jugular

Choosing a single tournament to assess this just isn't enough. For example, someone hitting 100% C1X for one of our great C2 putters could just mean a half dozen 15 foot putts, from those instances where they're missing a 45 footer and it rolls away too far to be a tap in. Theoretically 100% C1X could comprise 0 putts.

Very true. And it need not be great players. Even I've had tournament rounds where I didn't miss a putt in the circle. Inevitably the result of some combination of (1) accurate drives on short holes and approaches on long holes, keeping me within 20', (2) very bad drives and approaches leaving me outside the circle, for a certain miss and short comeback putt, and (3) hitting my 20-footers, which constitutes a hot putting round for me. I'm not sure a statistic that treats 11' putts and 32' putts the same, is providing a whole lot of insight.

*

What's more boring -- nearly-automatic 25-footers, or automatic 10-footers and tap-ins? If we created more missed 25-footers, wouldn't we also create more tap-ins (the aftermath of those misses)? Is there any more entertainment value in watching top pros can nearly-automatic putts -- knowing I'd miss a share of them, myself -- or watching them hit 6-foot comebacks (which even I can do)?

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by Steve West

It should have been 15 under. You already knew that.

If you insist that all holes must have a good chance of birdie, fifteen under is going to happen sometimes, no matter the size of the basket.

In your opinion.

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by Jugular

Choosing a single tournament to assess this just isn't enough. For example, someone hitting 100% C1X for one of our great C2 putters could just mean a half dozen 15 foot putts, from those instances where they're missing a 45 footer and it rolls away too far to be a tap in. Theoretically 100% C1X could comprise 0 putts. I don't see how a basket can be designed to make 15 footers difficult for the top pros without making it a bit of a farce.

This is why I say you're torturing the statistics, you talk about make rates at 25ft and equate that to C1X putting and then look at the stats all within one round. The one set of stats I found compelling where the Dickerson on different baskets where it made approximately 10% difference (we don't know how many were spit outs!), but you then said that a small basket wouldn't get that small so the difference seems likely to be less, at which point, what is the point, when like I say I'd enjoy quite a wide range of make %ges and I would guess there are others who share my view.

Scores against par are totally irrelevant to the discussion, please stop going back to that well. It shows you're not engaging with the subject honestly.

100% 33 feet and in over 3-4 rounds! An entire tournament! That should never happen or be a freak occurrence, not "yeah I didn't miss a putt this tournament." Players 2 "Yeah I missed one." lol

Outside of C1 is considered a throw anyways, hence you can jump putt. True putts are C1.

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

Very true. And it need not be great players. Even I've had tournament rounds where I didn't miss a putt in the circle. Inevitably the result of some combination of (1) accurate drives on short holes and approaches on long holes, keeping me within 20', (2) very bad drives and approaches leaving me outside the circle, for a certain miss and short comeback putt, and (3) hitting my 20-footers, which constitutes a hot putting round for me. I'm not sure a statistic that treats 11' putts and 32' putts the same, is providing a whole lot of insight.

*

What's more boring -- nearly-automatic 25-footers, or automatic 10-footers and tap-ins? If we created more missed 25-footers, wouldn't we also create more tap-ins (the aftermath of those misses)? Is there any more entertainment value in watching top pros can nearly-automatic putts -- knowing I'd miss a share of them, myself -- or watching them hit 6-foot comebacks (which even I can do)?

Depends on the player. Barela for instance likes to fly by 30 feet among others. His name came to mind not to disparage him but he really smashes his putts with speed. Someone like Barsby has a tap in with his high nose down putt. Make players try and stay closer to the basket after their first putt so they don't risk 3 putting often. Which we should see 3 putting as a thing, right now it's fairly rare for the pro's obviously.

[oldmandiscer]

Originally Posted by hiflyer

Didn't he miss a couple putts, and was just able to make up for them later?
I may be remembering incorrectly. I neither went back to watch it again, nor look up the stats for that round.

So, provided the preceding was true, while -18 may be the "perfect" score, it wasn't perfect putting that got him there.

At DGLO I don't think so on the first 18 under. At Waco he had one obstructed putt he laid up. Then eagled the 18th to make up for it.