Improving putting

[Jimaroid]

mostly for lag putts that you don't expect to hole.

I don't believe in the lag putting mentality, I always putt with holing in mind. The thought process of intentionally missing doesn't make sense to me. I will always take being past the hole as anything short is a wasted chance.

 

[phillarrow]

I don't believe in the lag putting mentality, I always putt with holing in mind. The thought process of intentionally missing doesn't make sense to me. I will always take being past the hole as anything short is a wasted chance.

Agreed... but I'm just not good enough to worry about whether it's a couple of feet past or a couple of feet short. Anything outside of 8 feet or so, I'm trying to hole it but more than happy to be within a binlid around it. Anything under 8 feet-ish, I'm disappointed to miss, but I still do... a lot!

 

[Imurg]

It's been said already..most missed putts are either short or long by more than they are wide.
There will be exceptions but, on the whole, if you look at a putt and pick a line then the chances are that line isn't going to more than a foot off...
But pick a pace and it's much more like be 6 feet away..
And, from 15 feet + I'd rather be 2 feet short than 6 feet past.....with enough pace to go 6 feet past, you're aiming at a target about an inch wide for the ball to drop
You've got to be both blooming accurate and blooming lucky to drop that putt at that pace so the chances of ho,ing it are slim to miniscule...

 

[Orikoru]

I don't believe in the lag putting mentality, I always putt with holing in mind. The thought process of intentionally missing doesn't make sense to me. I will always take being past the hole as anything short is a wasted chance.

Wouldn't really work for me on our greens. My usual thought process for long putts is 'try not to run this off the other side of the green'. ?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

It's been said already..most missed putts are either short or long by more than they are wide.
There will be exceptions but, on the whole, if you look at a putt and pick a line then the chances are that line isn't going to more than a foot off...
But pick a pace and it's much more like be 6 feet away..
And, from 15 feet + I'd rather be 2 feet short than 6 feet past.....with enough pace to go 6 feet past, you're aiming at a target about an inch wide for the ball to drop
You've got to be both blooming accurate and blooming lucky to drop that putt at that pace so the chances of ho,ing it are slim to miniscule...

Never up never in. If you are going 6 feet past then there is an issue with your pace control. I try and get every putt 18 past the hole as it has a chance at that speed to drop. Of course I can leave myself 2-3 footers coming back when I hit it too hard (we all do it) but that is the area I work most on so feel confident I'll make my fair share.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

After an enjoyable and good knock with a scratch player I mentioned that I thought that I’d putted well, the only difference being that he holed a few more than me. His response was a quite harsh but friendly ‘sense check‘ response…’well you didn’t really…you never got the ball past the hole’.

And of course he was quite right…and that rather obvious observation highlighted why he had holed more than me…and also one reason he’s scratch and I’m scraping around mid-high SFs.

 

[peld]

Hopefully im not jinxing myself, but i had an absolute epiphany at the weekend - i have never made a tweak to my play that has had as much impact as this:

On long putts (say 10ft and over) where im focused on pace, i got myself set up as normal, but then looked at the hole as made my stroke. My pace control has never been better from long range. It could have been the greens were my perfect speed (was playing at a mates course) but i had so many easy gimmies, and "technically" never 3 putted.

I still played shorter putts (ones im expected to hole) as normal (looking at the ball) where im more focused on stroke and roll. Need to get our our clubs putting green this week to see if it was just a fluke!

 

[peld]

I don't believe in the lag putting mentality, I always putt with holing in mind. The thought process of intentionally missing doesn't make sense to me. I will always take being past the hole as anything short is a wasted chance.

it isnt a process about missing, its about avoiding the big miss.
e.g. if you aim to stop it on an area the size of dustbin lid - there is still a good chance it goes in, but then at worst you are left with a tap in.

 

[BiMGuy]

it isnt a process about missing, its about avoiding the big miss.
e.g. if you aim to stop it on an area the size of dustbin lid - there is still a good chance it goes in, but then at worst you are left with a tap in.

I think more people need to educate themselves on shot patterns.

Thinking like, getting every putt past the hole, is out dated.

100% of putts left short don’t go in. But neither do 100% of putts that go past the hole.

 

[Backache]

I think more people need to educate themselves on shot patterns.

Thinking like, getting every putt past the hole, is out dated.

100% of putts left short don’t go in. But neither do 100% of putts that go past the hole.

Surely it depends on the initial length of the putt. Under 10 feet virtually everything should be in the hole or passed it. Outside around thirty feet the shot pattern should be centered around the whole with approx equal distances long and short. In between will be a slight mix.

 

[BiMGuy]

Surely it depends on the initial length of the putt. Under 10 feet virtually everything should be in the hole or passed it. Outside around thirty feet the shot pattern should be centered around the whole with approx equal distances long and short. In between will be a slight mix.

From 10ft I’d hope to get everything up to the hole, but it’s also to be expected that some will be short.

I would say that as the chance of holing anything outside that distance is so small, that the hole should be the centre of your shot pattern.

For people who think every put should go past the hole.
If your shot pattern is 6 ft deep. And every putt goes past the hole. You are going to have an awful lot of 3ft to 6ft putts coming back. If you centre that same shot pattern on the hole. Yes some will be 3ft short, but you will only ever be 3ft long. That’s a lot less stress and a fewer 3 putts.

 

[i*windows]

This device helped me so much, sorted my tempo and rhythm out. Once that was solved and I could see the improvements I relaxed much more and I've gone from being a terrible putter who hated putting to a pretty decent putter who now enjoys putting.

Get Blast Golf - Blast Golf (blastmotion.com) ,

 

[sweaty sock]

From 10ft I’d hope to get everything up to the hole, but it’s also to be expected that some will be short.

I would say that as the chance of holing anything outside that distance is so small, that the hole should be the centre of your shot pattern.

For people who think every put should go past the hole.
If your shot pattern is 6 ft deep. And every putt goes past the hole. You are going to have an awful lot of 3ft to 6ft putts coming back. If you centre that same shot pattern on the hole. Yes some will be 3ft short, but you will only ever be 3ft long. That’s a lot less stress and a fewer 3 putts.

In that case 50% of your second putts would be between 3 and 6 feet. That's before we talk about capture width....

 

[BiMGuy]

In that case 50% of your second putts would be between 3 and 6 feet. That's before we talk about capture width....

If your shot pattern was 6ft deep. And you could centre your shot pattern on the hole. You would only ever be 3ft short or 3ft long.

If every putt went past the hole, and your shot pattern was 6ft deep. The centre of that shot pattern would be 3ft past the hole. Then 50%of putts would be between 3ft and 6ft.

 

[Backsticks]

If your shot pattern was 6ft deep. And you could centre your shot pattern on the hole. You would only ever be 3ft short or 3ft long.

If every putt went past the hole, and your shot pattern was 6ft deep. The centre of that shot pattern would be 3ft past the hole. Then 50%of putts would be between 3ft and 6ft.

Not really. While some putts might hop the centre of the hole with a 6ft passed speed on them, a majority of them would drop. Even those that hit but dont drop are likely to have been slowed up, and only finish a ft or two byond the hole. So I would say the likely outcome in your scenario is that 80% would drop and 20% within 2ft.

 

[phillarrow]

My point is the lines on the ball are useless if you cannot align it with sufficient accuracy to your chosen target. If you could, and the line were long enough, then I would think lines would benefit putting. But being limited to a line that is 1.68" at BEST long, you cannot align it precisely in the first place. So making it possibly more misleading than helpful. The problem is that the line you can make, is limited to the diameter of the ball, and so too short to be of use. We just dont have it in our fingers and eyesight to place a 2mm wide line to a precision of 0.02mm.

But it is probably worth distinguishing the physics from the mental elements. Geometrically, lines are useless to aim a golf ball at a target. But for those who dont know that, I would certainly accept that the illusion that they might help can bring a positive mental aspect, giving a certainty on the line (even if it is wrong), a sense of confidence and focus, which is important in putting, and a routine.

So, does your opinion extend to the belief that a golfer will find it easier to aim towards their chosen target better by standing above the ball and squaring the putter up perpendicular to that target? Are you saying that this will give a better chance of aiming correctly that standing behind the line of sight and using a line to aim to that target?

You must have missed the above question so I've posted it again for you.

 

[Backsticks]

You must have missed the above question so I've posted it again for you.

I didnt, but feel you are missing my point, made several times : the line on a ball cannot be aligned with sufficient useful accuracy in the first place.
Or, moving back a step from the assumption implied in your question : do you believe that a line on a ball can be aligned within 2.25" deviation of the target ?

 

[BiMGuy]

Not really. While some putts might hope the centre of the hole with a 6ft passed speed on them, a majority of them would drop. Even those that hit but dont drop are likely to have been slowed up, and only finish a ft or two byond the hole. So I would say the likely outcome 8n your scenario is that 80% would drop and 20% within 2ft.

You are assuming every putt hits the hole. Which won’t happen.

I didnt, but feel you are missing my point, made several times : the line on a ball cannot be aligned with sufficient useful accuracy in the first place.
Or, moving back a step from the assumption implied in your question : do you believe that a line on a ball can be aligned within 2.25" deviation of the target ?

Of course it can.

 

[Backsticks]

You are assuming every putt hits the hole. Which won’t happen.

In your proposal, you state explicitly that they will ?

 

[Backsticks]

You are assuming every putt hits the hole. Which won’t happen.


Of course it can.

And thats the point where we diverge. If you believe it can, than you might believe it can help your putting. But I dont think the geometry agrees that one can do so.