Short game and putting matrix

[Damon Lucas]

Damon, you said "1. Roll the ball at a speed THAT, if it hits the hole, it has a good chance of falling in, EVERYTIME;"

Correct me if I am wrong here, but a putt that "falls in, EVERYTIME" has only just barely reached the hole......and most amateurs will leave it short if they try it...


You are wrong here(with your perception of what I am saying!). Toppling in the front edge would be a better way, for you, of saying that the speed should be front edge speed. Falling in for me implies that if the ball hits the hole anywhere around the circumference or even within the cylinder, it has a 'good' chance of falling. Read the exact language and leave your confirmation biases at home!



Sorry Damon, that argument doesn't hold up any more..

When you throw a ball to someone, you ALWAYS throw it "overweight"....for example, if they didn't catch it, they would be turning around to chase it....
Also as has already been stated, the catcher nearly always has to move their hand/arm somewhat to make the catch, so throwing is very much less precise than putting...

And you prove my point. In that when you throw a ball to someone, you throw it with 'enough' weight to get it there. If you threw it over the catcher's head, then you would adjust. This throwing analogy is one example, btw. The point is that we all have an instinctive awareness of the space surrounding us, and the objects/targets within that space. Another example might be a doorknob. When you reach for a doorknob, how often are you short or long, and why? The science behind how that applies to putting might be beyond you, or out of reach of your attention, or it might just not suit your agenda, but that doesn't make it impractical or useful for the majority of golfers.
Ref:
"Secondly, my distance control 'theory' is predicated on humans' instinctive ability to relate to a target. "...

That's fine if you have both eyes on the target, but after address it doesn't apply as you are now 90 degrees off that position....

So you're trying to guess or calculate your distance control while you are over the ball?? Tell me more...

Ref:
"Now why don't you produce a scintilla of evidence as to why 12-18 inches is a good number?"....

Damon, surely you watch your putts when you play?....

Not evidence....your science, please...

How many times do you see the ball end up directly behind the hole, i.e it has done a 90 degree turn in the last 6-8 inches of travel.......why take the chance?.....

I understand the relationship between break, speed, and where on each putt maximum break is likely to occur. If you would like to take your condescending tone to another level, you had better bring some evidence. As of now, you are projecting opinion with a very patronising tone.

 

[thefuture37]

I understand the relationship between break, speed, and where on each putt maximum break is likely to occur. If you would like to take your condescending tone to another level, you had better bring some evidence. As of now, you are projecting opinion with a very patronising tone.

Your tone in that last response was quite condescending also. How does one's ability to reach out and grab a door knob have anything to do with putting? Maybe it explains why someone could set up to a putt, close their eyes, and still make contact. But that has nothing to do with judging the speed of a putt. All of your examples are OVERSIMPLIFIED with regards to something as complex as hitting a tiny golf ball into a small hole across uneven ground of various types of grass cut to various lengths over various total distances.

 

[Damon Lucas]

Your tone in that last response was quite condescending also. How does one's ability to reach out and grab a door knob have anything to do with putting? Maybe it explains why someone could set up to a putt, close their eyes, and still make contact. But that has nothing to do with judging the speed of a putt. All of your examples are OVERSIMPLIFIED with regards to something as complex as hitting a tiny golf ball into a small hole across uneven ground of various types of grass cut to various lengths over various total distances.

Future,

Any condescending tone in my posts are a response to others' lack of respect. If you were to read all my posts, you would find that I simply try to answer people's posts as best as possible. People are perfectly entitled to disagree with me. It is when they do so with certain tonalities in the language, as well as provide nothing substansive in their post, that I 'react'.

So as to the doorknob example that in your mind has NOTHING to do with putting. Awareness of where something is in space (ie a hole) I would think has a substantial role to play in one's ability to roll the ball across uneven ground of various types of grass cut to various lengths over various total distances. What is it about our insticts that allow us to reach, grab, and open the doorknob with ease? Even if halfway to the doorknob you shut your eyes.

Rather than say that I am oversimplifying, ask yourself how could someone have come up with that comparison, what and how would that be useful, even if your personal experience does not allow for that possibility. And if you do disagree, then refute it with a decent argument so that I and others might learn from you, not just, 'Damon, you're too technical...too simplistic....your argument doesn't hold up any more...etc.

 

[thefuture37]

Future,

Any condescending tone in my posts are a response to others' lack of respect. If you were to read all my posts, you would find that I simply try to answer people's posts as best as possible. People are perfectly entitled to disagree with me. It is when they do so with certain tonalities in the language, as well as provide nothing substansive in their post, that I 'react'.

why do you lower yourself based on what other people say to you on an internet forum?

So as to the doorknob example that in your mind has NOTHING to do with putting. Awareness of where something is in space (ie a hole) I would think has a substantial role to play in one's ability to roll the ball across uneven ground of various types of grass cut to various lengths over various total distances. What is it about our insticts that allow us to reach, grab, and open the doorknob with ease? Even if halfway to the doorknob you shut your eyes..

Putting doesn't involve the golfer taking the ball in his hand and placing it in the hole. The hands interact with the handle of the putter. Your awareness of the door knob in space is like saying you have an awareness to the putter in your hands. GREAT! Like I said, this allows you to hit a putt blind folded(just like you can reach a door knob blindfolded). But how does that relate to the hole?

I am not saying there is no "feel" in putting or anything like that. All I am arguing is that there is not "instinctual basis" for putting. Putting is not a natural act and there is no reason for humans to have any inherent knack for it. It is something that is learned.

 

[Damon Lucas]

THe instinct(for distance!!) comes in when you combine awareness of a target with a consistent tempo. That tempo can be practised, it can be fast, slow or somewhere in between, it could be 'relative to gravity' which is one way, and incidently the key factor in how you can reach for that aforementioned doorknob and grab it with near certainty.

 

[puttmad]

....

I understand the relationship between break, speed, and where on each putt maximum break is likely to occur. If you would like to take your condescending tone to another level, you had better bring some evidence. As of now, you are projecting opinion with a very patronising tone.

Quote

"And you prove my point. In that when you throw a ball to someone, you throw it with 'enough' weight to get it there."

Sorry Damon, when you throw a ball to someone, you throw it with MORE than enough weight to get there.....OK some you can lob and some you can (baseball) sidearm at them...In both instances if they miss the catch the ball ends up behind them....

The only analogy you can use for puting is when you roll the ball along the ground to the other persons feet - the exact distance, otherwise it is meaningless....you don't putt a golf ball in the air.....

And BTW, I wan't being condescending..I was just stating an observation as I see it....if you want to take offense that is up to you, but it wasn't meant that way...


REF:

"So you're trying to guess or calculate your distance control while you are over the ball?? Tell me more..."

I already did... (to your personal email, once in May 2007, and again as requested in May 2008) But maybe you didn't read it...

 

[puttmad]

.....

I am not saying there is no "feel" in putting or anything like that. All I am arguing is that there is not "instinctual basis" for putting. Putting is not a natural act and there is no reason for humans to have any inherent knack for it. It is something that is learned.

ALLELUYA!!!!!

At last someone apart from me has it figured.....

 

[puttmad]

Damon, you said "1. Roll the ball at a speed THAT, if it hits the hole, it has a good chance of falling in, EVERYTIME;"

Correct me if I am wrong here, but a putt that "falls in, EVERYTIME" has only just barely reached the hole......and most amateurs will leave it short if they try it...


You are wrong here(with your perception of what I am saying!). Toppling in the front edge would be a better way, for you, of saying that the speed should be front edge speed. Falling in for me implies that if the ball hits the hole anywhere around the circumference or even within the cylinder, it has a 'good' chance of falling. Read the exact language and leave your confirmation biases at home!

"that if the ball hits the hole anywhere around the circumference or even within the cylinder, it has a 'good' chance of falling"

Damon, you have just stated two different scenarios in the same sentence...

For a ball to hit the circumference (think left and right side of hole) and "fall in EVERYTIME" it must be just about stopped..
The other "within the cylinder" example can be travelling much faster...

 

[Damon Lucas]

Quote

"And you prove my point. In that when you throw a ball to someone, you throw it with 'enough' weight to get it there."

Sorry Damon, when you throw a ball to someone, you throw it with MORE than enough weight to get there.....OK some you can lob and some you can (baseball) sidearm at them...In both instances if they miss the catch the ball ends up behind them....

So in one of your recent critiques of me, 'my' distance control was not enough to get the ball to the hole, and now you are saying that it would send the ball too far.

The only analogy you can use for puting is when you roll the ball along the ground to the other persons feet - the exact distance, otherwise it is meaningless....you don't putt a golf ball in the air.....

It is not the rolling, or the throwing, that is my point, it is an awareness of objects in space and your proximity to them, and how you understand that proximity, that is useful to putting.

And BTW, I wan't being condescending..I was just stating an observation as I see it....if you want to take offense that is up to you, but it wasn't meant that way...


REF:

"So you're trying to guess or calculate your distance control while you are over the ball?? Tell me more..."

I already did... (to your personal email, once in May 2007, and again as requested in May 2008) But maybe you didn't read it...

I am not going to provide your thesis to Brian's forum. I have read it and found it appalling in it's complexity(your addendum had 65 different calculations for various putts inside of 30 feet with need for further calculations if the green dared to have any slope, or stimp differential). For those weak in maths, they have no chance.

Seriously, has anyone with even half a brain reviewed your work? Has no one ever criticised you. How widespread have your theories gone?

 

[Damon Lucas]

ALLELUYA!!!!!

At last someone apart from me has it figured.....

So why are kids often better than adults?
Is there an instinctual basis for anything that is learned for the first time?
Andrew, do you think that seeking others' support will make what you say more valid, even though you STILL have not said one constructive thing?

 

[Damon Lucas]

"that if the ball hits the hole anywhere around the circumference or even within the cylinder, it has a 'good' chance of falling"

Damon, you have just stated two different scenarios in the same sentence...

For a ball to hit the circumference (think left and right side of hole) and "fall in EVERYTIME" it must be just about stopped..
The other "within the cylinder" example can be travelling much faster...

Now you are doing a pathetic job of attempting to twist my words.
If the ball hits the circumference, why should it be the left or right edge of the circumference? Relative to what?
Unless you are saying that the ball needs to dribble over all the grass blades above, on, and just inside the hole at the entry point(not what I said!)

 

[thefuture37]

So why are kids often better than adults?
Is there an instinctual basis for anything that is learned for the first time?

thats a really anecdotal piece of evidence to present after you have been asking for peer-reviewed material from other people(including other threads).

as for the second part, do you mean "is there an instinctual basis for anything BEFORE it is tried/learned for the first time"?

if thats the case, the answer is of course. animals develop "hard wiring" to do all sorts of instinctual behaviors during evolution. is it your argument that humans have evolved to putt a golf ball? ok that was too easy. i'll reword it. do you think humans have evolved to do ANYTHING that remotely involves putting(i.e. using a tool to strike one object so that it moves across the ground to a definte, predetermined position)

 

[Damon Lucas]

thats a really anecdotal piece of evidence to present after you have been asking for peer-reviewed material from other people(including other threads).

I have come to have a lot of respect for Mandrin and the call for peer reviewed work was both complimentary and a request for more information and perhaps a different way of saying the same thing.
Can you answer the question though?

as for the second part, do you mean "is there an instinctual basis for anything BEFORE it is tried/learned for the first time"?

Yes, and with respect to putting, using the cerebellum, visual system, mapping systems, and gravity, IF you understand how, are all useful aspects.

Future, you don't have to follow a sentence of what I am saying. Keep doing what you are doing.


if thats the case, the answer is of course. animals develop "hard wiring" to do all sorts of instinctual behaviors during evolution. is it your argument that humans have evolved to putt a golf ball? ok that was too easy. i'll reword it. do you think humans have evolved to do ANYTHING that remotely involves putting(i.e. using a tool to strike one object so that it moves across the ground to a definte, predetermined position)

How do you think our ancestors learnt to fish?

 

[thefuture37]

How do you think our ancestors learnt to fish?

That sentence is contradictory. If something is instinctual, then you wouldn't need to learn how to do it.

As for your question about kids vs adults, my answer is based on the fact that your answer is anecdoctal. I don't think kids are better at putting than adults, with all else being equal.

Peer-reviewed material is the gold-standard for science, but to ask for peer-reviewed evidence for things that obviously never have been studied in such a way is condescending and ridiculous.

"Yes, and with respect to putting, using the cerebellum, visual system, mapping systems, and gravity, IF you understand how, are all useful aspects."

IF I understand how to drink the kool aid. Seriously though you can say cerebellum and mapping systems all you want, but it doesn't make up for your unreasonable belief that humans have an innate ability to play a game made up by humans.

 

[Bigwill]

Besides the obvious difference between rolling a ball in hand, and rolling it with a putter, why is there such a big difference between the two, once the feel for the instrument has been established?

 

[pm4610]

Brian,
Any idea if there will be a putting video? If so, any idea when?

Thanks,
p

 

[Brian Manzella]

Brian,
Any idea if there will be a putting video? If so, any idea when?

Thanks,
p

Soon.

 

[pm4610]

YES!! Way to go Brian!

 

[puttmad]

I am not going to provide your thesis to Brian's forum. I have read it and found it appalling in it's complexity(your addendum had 65 different calculations for various putts inside of 30 feet with need for further calculations if the green dared to have any slope, or stimp differential). For those weak in maths, they have no chance.

Seriously, has anyone with even half a brain reviewed your work? Has no one ever criticised you. How widespread have your theories gone?

Damon,

Ref:
"So in one of your recent critiques of me, 'my' distance control was not enough to get the ball to the hole, and now you are saying that it would send the ball too far."

That's not what I said at all....and it is obvious that anything i say on this thread is going to be misunderstood.

Oh and BTW, I am not interested in you presenting my work to the forum...I never was and knew that was never going to happen anyway....and why didn't you present your findings to my email as I did when I sent the program to you 18 months ago...

It is apparent anyway that you have not followed the program, otherwise you would have realized there is only one basic calculation (logical) and one adjustment for gradient for each putt, not 65 different scenarios...

Anyway, that is enough from (and for) me....thank you.

 

[jeffreycharris]

expected release on the putting matrix?