We've launched the new forums! Read more here

is it really always "all that much better" to putt past the hole vs let it die in?

rollin

rollin

"Just playin golf pally"
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
12,624
Reaction score
1,113
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?
 
For me it depends on the speed of the greens.

Fast greens = more break = bigger mistakes, Die it in speed.

Slower greens = less break = more room for error/aggressive lines, 1.5' past the hole speed.

All in theory of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don't like to die it in. I am of the group who wants to see it roll past a bit. Not too far, you don't want a knee knocker coming back.
 
I hear your logic. Sounds good.

Obviously with exceptions for certain circumstances, I like the ball rolling by the hole. The lumpy donut theory has a ton of merit in my opinion and can easily rob a dying putt that should go in, but also I like being able to watch the putt break when it goes by the hole. I have a lot better idea what it will do than if I leave it short.
 
I don't think leaving putts shorts has an advantage over running them by. If you are a good putter, the comeback is not an issue. In my case I have 2' to 3' comebacks if not shorter
 
LordByron said:
For me it depends on the speed of the greens.

Fast greens = more break = bigger mistakes, Die it in speed.

Slower greens = less break = more room for error/aggressive lines, 1.5' past the hole speed.

All in theory of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I kind of like that logic.
 
If you run it by you get to see the line coming back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dave Pelz did the math on this a while back... The math says run it by a bit.

My Uncle summed it up years before I knew who Pelz was " 100% of all short putts don't go in " :D
 
I'm happier if I go 3' by than if I leave it 1.5' short. When I get to see the line my make percentage from 3' is pretty high.
Every putt left short NEVER had a chance. When I run them by a little I find I make many more birdies.
 
The one thing I learned from my high school golf coach was to never leave a birdie putt short and I've tried to implement that for all putts. If it doesn't get there no way it will go in.
 
@Chris said:
Dave Pelz did the math on this a while back... The math says run it by a bit.

My Uncle summed it up years before I knew who Pelz was " 100% of all short putts don't go in " :D
Click to expand...

100% of long putts missed the hole. Those didn't go in either, 100% of the time

I'm going to try to hit the hole every time from now on!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
we need to consider part of this question is not just an average round but also a given scenario. It has to do with when one is just not finding the cup that day and is missing left or right too much. My possible theory is that during such rounds the "die the ball in the hole" method may offer closer second putts. Reason I say that is because it just seems that those who tend to putt more aggressively seem to miss further away vs the misses from one who tends to play the die in method. Not to say we are to play to miss the hole of course but only to play a certain way given the fact that (on this day) we just cant find the center of the cup.
 
Yes, I feel it's better to go past the hole 18" rather than die it in the hole. There's 3 ways to miss putt; left, right and short. Most pro's go past the hole where most of us amateurs visualize the putt just barely falling in the hole. Pro's make a larger percent of their putts by being aggressive and us amateurs miss putts short, along with missing left and right, more often. Nothing worse than hitting a putt dead in the center of the cup but 1-2 inches short. That 1" putt is the same stroke as a piped 250 yard center fairway drive. By putting 18" past the hole you play less break and you see the line coming back for the next putt. I visualize the ball hitting the back of the hole.
 
rollin said:
we need to consider part of this question is not just an average round but also a given scenario. It has to do with when one is just not finding the cup that day and is missing left or right too much. My possible theory is that during such rounds the "die the ball in the hole" method may offer closer second putts. Reason I say that is because it just seems that those who tend to putt more aggressively seem to miss further away vs the misses from one who tends to play the die in method. Not to say we are to play to miss the hole of course but only to play a certain way given the fact that (on this day) we just cant find the center of the cup.
Click to expand...

I think it's a flawed question. You can't say people that putt aggressively leave longer second shots and then ask what is better. My guess is that is a characterization created by the fact that that's not your miss. All miss distances being equal i.e. long vs short, which I think they are, you should generally miss long so you can see the break in which you will be making your next putt. That being said, if going long is going to leave a slick downhill putt, I'd consider trying to die it at the hole.
 
Want to stop in the area of the hole for a tap in if it missed. don't want a next putt so long it has to be read.
 
The best mathematical chance at a made putt is when you hit the ball on pace for 6" past the hole. That's what I try to do everytime
 
I don't try to die them in the hole...it happens sometimes. Goal is to always get the ball to the hole ore past it. Short putts are never going in even if on the right line. Being long gives the putt a chance to be made and if one pays attention to what the ball does when it gies by the hole then the chances of making the comeback gets easier. Keep the ball within 18" past the hole is my thought process
 
I used to be a die it in the hole guy. I noticed that I would have many curlers at the hole.

However since putting a new putter In the bag. The confidence has gone up and rarely will I leave it short. I'm not afraid of the 3' knee knockers coming back if I happen to power it by.
 
I am of the opinion that all putts need to finish 1-2 feet pass the hole if it misses the cup.

1. Nothing worst than the one that if it rolled one more turn or less it's in.

2. It will hold a better line if it has pace and not be effected as much by foot print or small imperfection.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the danger after the hole. My general plan is 12 inches past. But with a big leaner that keeps on leaning after the hole and leaves me with lots of break, for example, or leaves me with an uphill putt with lots of break, leaving me with a tricky downhiller, I will re-evaluate my general plan and may die it in....

If I had more control over approach shots, I'd place them for the easier putt.
 
I've always been a die it into the hole kind of putter... Every once in a while I get overzealous and smash them into the back door but for the most part, I enjoy the stress free experience of tap in pars.

Yeah, the break will come into play more, but I'm fine with it. I'd rather three pars than one par, one birdie, and one bogey.
 
I've been aggressive all season and have had success. Haven't missed many comebackers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Canadan said:
I've always been a die it into the hole kind of putter... Every once in a while I get overzealous and smash them into the back door but for the most part, I enjoy the stress free experience of tap in pars.

Yeah, the break will come into play more, but I'm fine with it. I'd rather three pars than one par, one birdie, and one bogey.
Click to expand...

Kind of like what my score card usually shows Hahahaha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Canadan said:
I've always been a die it into the hole kind of putter... Every once in a while I get overzealous and smash them into the back door but for the most part, I enjoy the stress free experience of tap in pars.

Yeah, the break will come into play more, but I'm fine with it. I'd rather three pars than one par, one birdie, and one bogey.
Click to expand...

Ummm the sum is the same? Pars are always good though.
 
T2GRN18 said:
Ummm the sum is the same? Pars are always good though.
Click to expand...

Yes but are they created equal hahaha I get what he's saying - Tap ins are way less stressful and much higher likelyhood of making. I guess it's a mindset


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top