rollin
"Just playin golf pally"
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 12,639
- Reaction score
- 1,119
- Location
- planet earth, milky way galaxy
- Handicap
- 15.7
is it really always "all that much better" to putt past the hole vs let it die in?
JB's post asks us if we are generally missing more putts long vs short and it got me thinking about something that well....I been thinking of lately anyway. I tend to (and perhaps to a fault) play to let the ball die in the hole vs being aggressive.
I do understand the logic that if a putt is short it cant go in the hole and as long as a putt is headed for the hole more will of course drop if (within reason) longer than the hole. So it stands to reason being a bit aggressive would or should mean more holed putts vs being short due to playing the ball to die in.
But sometimes (during given rounds) I wonder to question this. Reason being is that I feel many times being short (due to playing the dying putt) often leaves an easier second putt vs the longer misses (due to being more aggressive). From what I think I see more often is that basically the comebacker is more often a longer putt than the one left over after the dying putt and so more of those comebacker second putts are then missed vs the second putts from the dying short miss.
I think it also depends on whether or not one is having a poor putting round. If one just cant seem to find the center of the cup that day (we all been there) and is missing left/right then its quite possible on those days he/she may actually be better off missing left/right while playing via the putt to die in vs being left/right and playing via the aggressive one. In this case where as they are simply off the target too often that day one would then end up with easier (shorter) second putts therefore less 3 putts. Not saying miss short on purpose but just playing the dying putt vs the aggressive one on those days when you cant find the center line.
I know it goes against the logic and I do understand the logic but when I see more aggressive putters of the ball miss it seems its often a much longer putt for the second one. So with that said..... might it pay off (when you cant find the line that day) to play the "die in the hole" type putt vs the aggressive one? Think any crazy truth to this? Or is it just flat out wrong? or at east worth a thought?
JB's post asks us if we are generally missing more putts long vs short and it got me thinking about something that well....I been thinking of lately anyway. I tend to (and perhaps to a fault) play to let the ball die in the hole vs being aggressive.
I do understand the logic that if a putt is short it cant go in the hole and as long as a putt is headed for the hole more will of course drop if (within reason) longer than the hole. So it stands to reason being a bit aggressive would or should mean more holed putts vs being short due to playing the ball to die in.
But sometimes (during given rounds) I wonder to question this. Reason being is that I feel many times being short (due to playing the dying putt) often leaves an easier second putt vs the longer misses (due to being more aggressive). From what I think I see more often is that basically the comebacker is more often a longer putt than the one left over after the dying putt and so more of those comebacker second putts are then missed vs the second putts from the dying short miss.
I think it also depends on whether or not one is having a poor putting round. If one just cant seem to find the center of the cup that day (we all been there) and is missing left/right then its quite possible on those days he/she may actually be better off missing left/right while playing via the putt to die in vs being left/right and playing via the aggressive one. In this case where as they are simply off the target too often that day one would then end up with easier (shorter) second putts therefore less 3 putts. Not saying miss short on purpose but just playing the dying putt vs the aggressive one on those days when you cant find the center line.
I know it goes against the logic and I do understand the logic but when I see more aggressive putters of the ball miss it seems its often a much longer putt for the second one. So with that said..... might it pay off (when you cant find the line that day) to play the "die in the hole" type putt vs the aggressive one? Think any crazy truth to this? Or is it just flat out wrong? or at east worth a thought?