The Wisdom of Lou....

[Backsticks]

Precisely, this is why the old 'dustbin lid' rhetoric is nonsense as well. Bigger target area, bigger margin of error. Keep the target small - i.e. the hole itself.

Benefit of the distbin lid mentality is that the purpose is to have an easy second putt, a sure thing. So it focuses the mind on distance - distance is more important than line, and the element that needs the athletic skill, spacial awareness, and visualisation of distance from a target you arent looking at as you hit the ball.
The small target has more of an emphasis on line. So hit the target like a dart board....or nothing. But putting isnt an or nothing challenge. There is a second chance, and not missing that is more key to good putting than the exponentially disappearing chances of holing putts longer than 20ft. And...you might still hole that 20+ footer. For 8ft or less, line is the thing - we arent going to leave it 7ft short like we might with a 40footer. In that case the dustbin lid concept is useless. But beyond 20ft, I think the its the better approach than the small target of the hole -

 

[Orikoru]

Benefit of the distbin lid mentality is that the purpose is to have an easy second putt, a sure thing. So it focuses the mind on distance - distance is more important than line, and the element that needs the athletic skill, spacial awareness, and visualisation of distance from a target you arent looking at as you hit the ball.
The small target has more of an emphasis on line. So hit the target like a dart board....or nothing. But putting isnt an or nothing challenge. There is a second chance, and not missing that is more key to good putting than the exponentially disappearing chances of holing putts longer than 20ft. And...you might still hole that 20+ footer. For 8ft or less, line is the thing - we arent going to leave it 7ft short like we might with a 40footer. In that case the dustbin lid concept is useless. But beyond 20ft, I think the its the better approach than the small target of the hole -

It's just not. If your target is to only get it within 2 feet of the hole, and your margin of error is 3 feet, then you can easily leave it 5 feet from the hole. If your target is the hole itself, same margin of error, you only leave it 3 feet from the hole. Simple.

 

[Crow]

It's just not. If your target is to only get it within 2 feet of the hole, and your margin of error is 3 feet, then you can easily leave it 5 feet from the hole. If your target is the hole itself, same margin of error, you only leave it 3 feet from the hole. Simple.

If only it was that easy!

 

[Backsticks]

It's just not. If your target is to only get it within 2 feet of the hole, and your margin of error is 3 feet, then you can easily leave it 5 feet from the hole. If your target is the hole itself, same margin of error, you only leave it 3 feet from the hole. Simple.

Too simple though. The mistake is the assumption that the margin of error in both approaches is the same.

Good Putting Numbers - It's About 3 Putts Not Putts per Round - Golfing Focus

All golfers have heard the well-worn phrase about putting - "You drive for show but you putt for dough."

golfingfocus.com

 

[Orikoru]

If only it was that easy!

It honestly made so much sense to me when I read it. I've seen so many people try and leave it in 'dustbin lid' then not commit to it, practically whiff it and leave it 5 feet short. I'm not saying you actively try and hole everything when you're lag putting but the goal should be to leave it as close as possible to the hole.

 

[Orikoru]

Too simple though. The mistake is the assumption that the margin of error in both approaches is the same.

Good Putting Numbers - It's About 3 Putts Not Putts per Round - Golfing Focus

All golfers have heard the well-worn phrase about putting - "You drive for show but you putt for dough."

golfingfocus.com

I'm pretty sure narrowing your target is a proven theory. It's like when you hit a drive the good coaches tell you to pick out one specific branch of one tree rather than a wide expanse to aim at.

 

[Backache]

As with most things that have a psychological element I suspect there is an element of horses for courses some people focus better with a small target for others a larger target relaxes them. For me the dustbin lid idea sucks but it doesn't mean that it doesn't work for others.
But I'm focused on the target not some large expanse around it, generally the better I'm focused the closer I get.

 

[garyinderry]

I'm pretty sure narrowing your target is a proven theory. It's like when you hit a drive the good coaches tell you to pick out one specific branch of one tree rather than a wide expanse to aim at.

Let's be honest. Picking a tiny target like that is nonsense too. We can't hit a hole from 6 feet with a putter half the time.

 

[Backsticks]

As with most things that have a psychological element I suspect there is an element of horses for courses some people focus better with a small target for others a larger target relaxes them. For me the dustbin lid idea sucks but it doesn't mean that it doesn't work for others.
But I'm focused on the target not some large expanse around it, generally the better I'm focused the closer I get.

I guess so. Putting is so psychological, it is whatever works for you.
Illustrated dramatically by the likes of this, where your second putt is actually influenced systematically by from where you hit the previous shot ! History. But the mind cant shake off the history.
Yes, you are more likely to hole that 6ft putt if the shot that put you there wasnt a putt !

 

[CountLippe]

I'm pretty sure narrowing your target is a proven theory. It's like when you hit a drive the good coaches tell you to pick out one specific branch of one tree rather than a wide expanse to aim at.

True, but when your hitting a full shot your not really concerned about pace.
In my experience with distance putting, similar to chipping, your relying on your brain to subconciously work out how hard to hit the ball. By picking a big target your brain is comfortable it can do it (and aim at centre of big target). The smaller the target you pick the more you conciously think about how hard to hit it and this increases the margin of error.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I guess so. Putting is so psychological, it is whatever works for you.
Illustrated dramatically by the likes of this, where your second putt is actually influenced systematically by from where you hit the previous shot ! History. But the mind cant shake off the history.
Yes, you are more likely to hole that 6ft putt if the shot that put you there wasnt a putt !

View attachment 50952

That seems to be distorted by some very dreadful putting by an unknown proportion of players in the sample.

19% misses from 2 feet and less?
24% of first putts finishing 7 feet or more from the hole? A few more might have finished 11 feet or more away - we just aren't told.

They need to practice and improve their putting. Could lower their handicaps considerably in the process maybe?

Are manufacturers just not making very good putters these days?
Better and more expensive putters might help, maybe?

 

[Albo]

That seems to be distorted by some very dreadful putting by an unknown proportion of players in the sample.

19% misses from 2 feet and less?
24% of first putts finishing 7 feet or more from the hole? A few more might have finished 11 feet or more away - we just aren't told.

They need to practice and improve their putting. Could lower their handicaps considerably in the process maybe?

Are manufacturers just not making very good putters these days?
Better and more expensive putters might help, maybe?

Yes 19% miss rate from 2ft and in is not a good look! That’s some serious yips

 

[Orikoru]

Yes 19% miss rate from 2ft and in is not a good look! That’s some serious yips

Really? I think I'd be happy with making 80% of two footers.

 

[Backsticks]

Lou makes the strong case this morning on latest Hack It Out stat podcast for, not necessarily dustbin lid versus point target, but certainly for the trap that is never-up-never-in. Get your dispersion centred on the hole, not beyond it !

 

[pendodave]

Yes 19% miss rate from 2ft and in is not a good look! That’s some serious yips

I'm not that surprised, tbh.
In social knocks in the winter I'm guessing most people are just taking gimmes from that distance.
I remember the first comp of the Spring this year that 2 foot suddenly seemed like a really long way.
Most people are much worse at the various bits of golf than they think they are. It's a weird bit of cognitive dissonance. They understand that they are (say) a 10 handicapper, but if you ask them about putting from 4 feet, or pitching from 100yds, they come up with expectations similar to a challenge tour pro.

 

[Backache]

He explains the logic of centering lag putts around the hole in a video here.

 

[SteveJay]

I'm not that surprised, tbh.
In social knocks in the winter I'm guessing most people are just taking gimmes from that distance.
I remember the first comp of the Spring this year that 2 foot suddenly seemed like a really long way.
Most people are much worse at the various bits of golf than they think they are. It's a weird bit of cognitive dissonance. They understand that they are (say) a 10 handicapper, but if you ask them about putting from 4 feet, or pitching from 100yds, they come up with expectations similar to a challenge tour pro.

Agreed, but I wonder about the impact, if any, of global golfers taking gimmes has on Shotscope Stats such as this? Im not a user, so don't know precisely how it works, but if your second putt is a gimme, wouldn't that actually artificially improve the putting success stats collected by Shotscope? Some of those gimmes would be missed if they were putted.

Perhaps the 81% success rate from 0-2 feet is actually overstated?

 

[Albo]

Agreed, but I wonder about the impact, if any, of global golfers taking gimmes has on Shotscope Stats such as this? Im not a user, so don't know precisely how it works, but if your second putt is a gimme, wouldn't that actually artificially improve the putting success stats collected by Shotscope? Some of those gimmes would be missed if they were putted.

Perhaps the 81% success rate from 0-2 feet is actually overstated?

This is a very good point, I use Arccos and when I take gimmies I move the putt marker to 1 or 2ft for my second (3rd more likely) putt.
So certainly for me if I’m just knocking around and not properly scoring but using the system it would show I make all the putts from that distance even though in reality I may miss some of those

 

[Jigger]

He explains the logic of centering lag putts around the hole in a video here.

Makes complete sense. If you’re not approx 50% past the hole then you are hitting too short and if you’re less than 50% short then you’re hitting to hard. It reminds me of Dave Peltz saying the perfect putt is 18” past the hole. That just made a lot of fold hit harder and move their distribution centre beyond the hole.

People just take stats too literally and think they are personalised to them sitting at their handicap. It’s the same with the dustbin lid analogy. It’s used to visualise an area of distribution that people would be comfortable one putting if they missed. In the end of the day, everyone is trying to hole the putt with or without lag depending on the slope and leave it as close as possibly if they miss.

The takeaway from Lou’s stat is to measure your dispersion to see if you’re being too heavy handed, too soft or have too many missed putts that’s stop outside of comfortable 1putt distance. I think he said a tight dispersion for a 15hcp is around 20’ so the first aim would be to keep it tight up to 25’.

 

[Jigger]

This is a very good point, I use Arccos and when I take gimmies I move the putt marker to 1 or 2ft for my second (3rd more likely) putt.
So certainly for me if I’m just knocking around and not properly scoring but using the system it would show I make all the putts from that distance even though in reality I may miss some of those

As a shotscope user I’d never compare myself from such a distance though. I’d be comparing from 10’ out. It’s probably why Lou is using pro stats to explain it and using a wider dispersion pattern to prove it.

If I picked up I’d still be marking where it stopped in terms of the flag when I do the adjustments.