Bryson says he is now compressing dimple edges on putts

[straightshot7]

36 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

All these guys made 100% of their 3 footers in the 2021 season. And the tour average was 99.5%.

 

Is this really an issue?

 

Or is it more like if you miss a 3 footer. You just put a bad stroke and misread the putt?

 

expand your search to 4-5 footers...

"When you’re hitting it softer, like a 5-footer or like a 3-footer, you hit it a little bit off the edges, it can now come off line.” Bryson

[straightshot7]

9 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 

We don't know how much the dimple thing affected his missed putts, so there is no way to compare. His solution was to begin hitting those putts more firmly. Do the people ahead of him, hit more firmly, align better, read the line better, putt the face more squarely, impact with more or less AoA, use different balls with different dimple patterns, use different face materials, etc.? A lot of variables...

 

Can it affect putts? Yes. Can ball design affect it? Yes. We could calculate the odds of it happening from measuring the geometry of the dimple pattern for a ball. I'm not going to do it, but maybe someone will. 🙂

 

The real questions is how does he reduce that variable?

 

Oh, it's a variable alright, but it's messy.

 

 

On the podcast I think he alludes to the solution...

I think the idea is that you position the ball so that any undesired movement happens vertically, not sideways. 

i.e. hitting the edge of a dimple but sending the ball up or down, instead of right or left (off the intended line)

[Jc0]

2 minutes ago, straightshot7 said:

On the podcast I think he alludes to the solution...

I think the idea is that you position the ball so that any undesired movement happens vertically, not sideways. 

i.e. hitting the edge of a dimple but sending the ball up or down, instead of right or left (off the intended line)

 

See, this is why Bryson claiming science is funny to me. He does all the science and then spins it to justify his equipment choice. The real solution here is to change to a softer face insert so that the face compresses and this is never an issue, but he's not going to do that because he likes his putter and he has partial ownership of sik. I'm not sure you could creat a soft insert with that tech since it has to be machined. 

[playit]

14 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I’m not trying to state factual data.  I have no study to cite.  I’m just showing that I’ve had the same hunch.   And this is why …. ( see pic) I use this ball too.  I don’t disagree. Some putter faces could likely compound the issue. 

 

Plus that I’ve noticed the “ wtf” moments with a short putt where  it just jumps one way or another. You’re not hitting  it hard enough to make it do some of the craziness I’ve seen.  Almost as if you had a tiny pebble or grain of sand on the face. ( but I wipe mine with my hand religiously)  …and my putter is a smooth face mill.  Almost smooth as tigers.  You can’t pick a milling grove with your finger nail it’s so faint.  And it passes the straight edge test. So flat as flat can really be.   So the only other variable is the ball surface.  
 

What he’s saying about compression makes sense . On long putts you squish the ball enough to deform it flat on the impact point.  So it’s less noticeable. 

 

^This. I was surprised to read all the posts thus far as if this is a far-fetched idea. I have had many short putts that upon putting, I was like, "What the hell just happened?" The putt immediately dove left or right in an amount that was bizarre. I have no explanation but his might be it. Or Pelz or whoever first quacked about it.

[munichop]

There was a ball maker a few years back that had 4 flat spots in the caver so if you put the ball down you could align the flat sot for the strike on a putt. Sadly the rest of the ball didn’t perform that well.

[bscinstnct]

17 minutes ago, straightshot7 said:

expand your search to 4-5 footers...

"When you’re hitting it softer, like a 5-footer or like a 3-footer, you hit it a little bit off the edges, it can now come off line.” Bryson

 

Why? If all these guys made 100% of the 3 footers, a length that is supposedly affected, and the tour average is 99.5%,

 

The affect is clearly so negligible that it’s no wonder nobody cares. 

[playit]

3 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Bryson's putting was ranked 23rd for 2021 season and has never ranked better than 15th. So while a lot of his peers are better putters  they don't seem to worry about the dimples, do they? 

 

Your argument is weak. If they don't, so what? If he's right, and it only happens one time out of a thousand, but that one time happens to be a 4 footer for the Fedex cup or a green jacket, how much did that one putt cost him? Nothing wrong with considering something that peers do not.

[playit]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

All these guys made 100% of their 3 footers in the 2021 season. And the tour average was 99.5%.

 

Is this really an issue?

 

Or is it more like if you miss a 3 footer. You just put a bad stroke and misread the putt?

 

 

Holy cow! Is that correct? If that is so, that is the most amazing stat I've ever seen! I am blown away by that. I wish I could know I was going to make every 3 footer! Sheesh, these guys are good.

[TiScape]

29 minutes ago, playit said:

 

Holy cow! Is that correct? If that is so, that is the most amazing stat I've ever seen! I am blown away by that. I wish I could know I was going to make every 3 footer! Sheesh, these guys are good.

Exactly! Simple solution here guys. When you place your ball down in front of your marker, just position it so you will miss all those pesky dimple edges!… Next 🤣

Edited October 11, 2021 by TiScape

[Soloman1]

But Baddeley drops to 87th place at 4 foot putts.

Snedeker is 131st from 4 feet.

Lahiri was 77th from 4 feet.

 

Shall I go on?

 

[bscinstnct]

7 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

But Baddeley drops to 87th place at 4 foot putts.

Snedeker is 131st from 4 feet.

Lahiri was 77th from 4 feet.

 

Shall I go on?

 

 

S1, you are like a science guy, right?

 

Lets see some actual data with thousands of putts on a dimpled edge with a typical tour putter and ball from 5 feet with a “robot” putter and then look at the numbers to determine the effect.

 

Otherwise it’s all pretty anecdotal/theoretical.

 

But, the hard data on thousands of putts is right there from the tour. And it’s with respect to 3 foot putts. A distance that is supposedly affected by this dimple thing.

 

And it looks obvious that it’s totally negligible,

 

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by bscinstnct

[stingerfade]

16 hours ago, Quasimoto said:

And how the gov has gotten away with Covid tyranny.

Get out with this nonsense 

[bladehunter]

49 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Why? If all these guys made 100% of the 3 footers, a length that is supposedly affected, and the tour average is 99.5%,

 

The affect is clearly so negligible that it’s no wonder nobody cares. 

Not really arguing. Just my 2 cents.  I’d guess that 8-9 feet and in on 12-13 stimped greens is effected.  You’re not hitting the putt hard at that length.   I’d say to compress it good  you’re talking 15 feet plus 

Edited October 11, 2021 by bladehunter

[Pepperturbo]

IMO - Accurate putting comes from using the sweet spot of the putter or exact spot towards the toe, when toe putting.  Has NOTHING to do with the dimples on the ball. 

 

Since Bryson is known for research and physics, he's pushing his credibility with that line of baloney.  But, some people like baloney, so they will swallow.

[bscinstnct]

1 minute ago, bladehunter said:

Not really arguing. Just my 2 cents.  I’d guess that 8-9 feet and in on 12-13 stimped greens is effected.  You’re not hitting the putt hard at that length.   I’d say to compress it good  you’re talking 15 feet plus 

 

Blade!

 

I totally buy the theory. I’d just like to see a bigger study on it. I bet the ball companies have done some. 

 

BD says over 5 feet is not a concern it seems like.

 

Some other person says it can cause a ball to be close to an inch off line for a short putt!!

 

I’d like to see some guys from MIT set up 1000 balls perfectly so the dimple edge is struck perfectly by the putter traveling perfectly straight from 5 feet and see the affects. 
 

 

 

 

[straightshot7]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Why? If all these guys made 100% of the 3 footers, a length that is supposedly affected, and the tour average is 99.5%,

 

The affect is clearly so negligible that it’s no wonder nobody cares. 

Can't say I agree with your logic.

The Tour average from 4 feet was 92.19% in 2021.

 

The Tour average from 5 feet was 81.49% in 2021.

 

The idea could be that a putt that is sent barely off-line by these dimple issues, still goes in at 3 feet. But stretch the putt out another foot, and now it lips out. 

I.e. you can get away with being slightly off line from 2 feet or 3 feet, but not from 4-5 feet

I am not saying I support Bryon's theory of the golf ball dimple edges being a big problem. I have no idea if he is right about that or not.

 

But, in theory, it is possible. And just looking at the 3 foot stat does not refute the theory. 

[Soloman1]

38 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

S1, you are like a science guy, right?

 

I'm like one? 🙂

 

Nothing is a simple as we'd all like it to be.

 

Bryson changed his putting speed from 5 feet and less, not just 3 feet. He makes more now.

 

Not all deflections and putts are equal. There is a range of deflection from none to over 1°. Not all putts are a flat read or with no cross grain. The intended line including grain and topographical break amplifies or reduces the deflection depending on the direction. The gear effect from the geometry of the face impact, can increase or decrease the deflection.

 

The longer the putt, the more offline the putt will be at the hole from the initial deflection. That's pretty simple stuff there. One degree offline at impact is more at 20 feet than at 10 feet.

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Soloman1

[BlackDiamondPar5]

1 hour ago, Soloman1 said:

 

We don't know how much the dimple thing affected his missed putts, so there is no way to compare. His solution was to begin hitting those putts more firmly. Do the people ahead of him, hit more firmly, align better, read the line better, putt the face more squarely, impact with more or less AoA, use different balls with different dimple patterns, use different face materials, etc.? A lot of variables...

 

Can it affect putts? Yes. Can ball design affect it? Yes. We could calculate the odds of it happening from measuring the geometry of the dimple pattern for a ball. I'm not going to do it, but maybe someone will. 🙂

 

The real questions is how does he reduce that variable?

 

Oh, it's a variable alright, but it's messy.

 

 

Right but is it really a variable that leads to missed putts?  There seems to be so many larger variables. Turf being a natural surface introduces a large amount of variation- blades of grass, imperfections, grains of sand etc and it changes throughout the day.   There are also imperceptible changes in break angle and air movement.  I recall reading about some test performed with a robotic putter, initially it could make all the putts but it it didn't take long before it started missing more and more as time went by because the conditions were changing.   

 

Then the swing itself, face alignment at impact--- a 1/2 degree is ~1/2 inch at 5 feet and 1 degree is a full inch if I did my math right.  What about the milled faces of putters, or faces with lines in them?  The ball itself, beyond the dimples is the ball perfectly balanced?  I don't know but I'm guessing while there is very tight tolerance, there still is variation as in all manufactured products.  How much of an impact is this?

 

Are dimples a variable, sure, but I say it's lost in the noise of other variables . I haven't seen other pros that putt better saying anything about it.   

 

 

 

[bscinstnct]

3 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 

I'm like one? 🙂

 

Nothing is a simple as we'd all like it to be.

 

Bryson changed his putting speed from 5 feet and less, not just 3 feet. He makes more now.

 

Not all deflections and putts are equal. There is a range of deflection from none to over 1°. Not all putts are a flat read or with no cross grain. The intended line including grain and topographical break amplifies or reduces the deflection depending on the direction. The gear effect from the geometry of the face impact, can increase or decrease the deflection.

 

The longer the putt, the more offline the putt will be at the hole from the initial deflection. That's pretty simple stuff there. One degree offline at impact is more at 20 feet than at 10 feet.

 

 

 

 

Wait, you saying there’s a possible 1* of deflection as a result of the dimple thing?

 

Just want to be sure I follow. 

[Soloman1]

I agree completely. We don't know how much of an impact it has on a particular putt.

 

As far as other people talking about it, we don't know who or if any think about it or not. Some people know and do things without giving away their secrets... 😉

 

In the end, the answer seems more and more to be, "We don't know."

 

 

[Soloman1]

2 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Wait, you saying there’s a possible 1* of deflection as a result of the dimple thing?

 

Just want to be sure I follow. 

 Yes.

[Go Cougs]

I don't necessarily doubt that it's possible dimple edges could have an effect on a putt, but I do doubt there's anything that can be done about it.

 

I don't think it's possible to line up the ball so the putter contacts a dimple exactly flush.  Think about it...you line up your ball, then stand up and take your stance, and you expect the putter face to be exactly flush with the edges of a dimple?  Please.

 

And as far as hitting the putt harder in an attempt to compress the edge to negate the effect?

[Valtiel]

15 hours ago, pjm said:

Maybe the ugly weld repels the ball?

 

Yeah, the dreaded weld shank. 🤢

[bscinstnct]

7 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

 Yes.

 

Wouldnt that mean that a 2-foot putt could be off like by almost half an inch?

 

I don’t believe it. That the dimple can cause that. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by bscinstnct

[Soloman1]

You don't always hit the edge of the dimple. 

 

But, in case you do hit the edge (again, you don't do it every time), more momentum will flatten the edge enough to at least reduce the effect.

 

In a game of variables, you try to reduce the variables. It's like risk management.

 

A golf tournament is not one shot. It is four rounds of shots. That could be about 90+ putts. If you make one more out of those 90 putts because of something you're doing differently, it's a big deal.

 

One shot, hit, throw in any sport at the right time can mean the difference in an inning, a game, a series, a season, a career and a franchise.

[Pepperturbo]

Anybody notice the face on Bryon's putter - it appears to be elastic polymer material of sorts.  Not sure if it even has a grain on the face.  Phil M's putter has similar.  I've watched Bryson putt enough to believe how he addresses the ball with his arms, and putter design are WHY he misses short putts. 

 

I've played 12-13 stimp greens a lot.  NO way I hit the ball hard enough to compress the "corners" of dimples of either DASH or AVX.  My SC Putter face is like the face of SC Newporter, it has a strong grainy appearance, which allegedly interacts with the ball surface to get the ball properly rolling from impact.  

 

Now, if we're to buy into Bryson's 'excuse' for not making putts, putter or ball companies need to change, or do they? lol

[bobfoster]

2 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Bryson, Pelz and others who have studied this effect are not wrong. It's just part of the gory details of golf. A soft insert can reduce the effect.

 

If you think it's not true, prove it.

 

Actually, when someone asserts something far outside the norm of current thinking, it is up to them to prove it is true - not up to someone that doubts it to prove it false. 

 

And I wouldn't mid the gory details of golf if there were some actual details here. BD seems to just make assertions. Details, to me, would be asking questions like:

 

1. If this is, indeed, a serious issue that affected putting in a non-trivial way, why have so few pros (including most of the very best) noticed it? Why wouldn't the entire top 150 all be asking the ball companies to make adjustments to lessen the effect? 

 

2. What is the degree of the problem? Something can be simultaneously both real, and relatively insignificant. Granted that hitting the edge of a dimple might do something, what, exactly is the extent of that something?

 

For instance, how often does it happen (certainly not on every putt - or every pro would be demanding different kinds of balls). And - perhaps most important - even at its alleged worst, how big is the effect? A putt being offline by a centimeter over a twelve foot putt (meaningless, as you couldn't even tell if it was a dimple of a half dozen other possible causes)? Or off by an inch on a four foot putt (would be meaningful, but obviously any effect dimples have would be far less pronounced)?

 

Nice to see BD studying the physics of the game. He's certainly not the first golfer that has. Especially these days when virtually every aspect of swings and equipment are measured by some pretty complex machines. The problem with getting too much into the science, however, is you can wind up going down mathematical rabbit holes and getting lost in trivialities.

[philly2kuk]

Well everyone said after the Ryder cup how long before he said something stupid. I gave him until mid November but he’s made a fool out of me by lasting just two weeks before coming out with yet another ridiculous excuse. 
 

Obviously Jack and tiger must’ve compressed those dimples to win all those majors…..

Edited October 11, 2021 by philly2kuk

[BlackDiamondPar5]

24 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

 

Actually, when someone asserts something far outside the norm of current thinking, it is up to them to prove it is true - not up to someone that doubts it to prove it false. 

 

And I wouldn't mid the gory details of golf if there were some actual details here. BD seems to just make assertions. Details, to me, would be asking questions like:

 

1. If this is, indeed, a serious issue that affected putting in a non-trivial way, why have so few pros (including most of the very best) noticed it? Why wouldn't the entire top 150 all be asking the ball companies to make adjustments to lessen the effect? 

 

2. What is the degree of the problem? Something can be simultaneously both real, and relatively insignificant. Granted that hitting the edge of a dimple might do something, what, exactly is the extent of that something?

 

For instance, how often does it happen (certainly not on every putt - or every pro would be demanding different kinds of balls). And - perhaps most important - even at its alleged worst, how big is the effect? A putt being offline by a centimeter over a twelve foot putt (meaningless, as you couldn't even tell if it was a dimple of a half dozen other possible causes)? Or off by an inch on a four foot putt (would be meaningful, but obviously any effect dimples have would be far less pronounced)?

 

Nice to see BD studying the physics of the game. He's certainly not the first golfer that has. Especially these days when virtually every aspect of swings and equipment are measured by some pretty complex machines. The problem with getting too much into the science, however, is you can wind up going down mathematical rabbit holes and getting lost in trivialities.

I agree. FYI... that was not my quote in the quote box.  Somehow someone else's ended up in it. 

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Blade!

 

I totally buy the theory. I’d just like to see a bigger study on it. I bet the ball companies have done some. 

 

BD says over 5 feet is not a concern it seems like.

 

Some other person says it can cause a ball to be close to an inch off line for a short putt!!

 

I’d like to see some guys from MIT set up 1000 balls perfectly so the dimple edge is struck perfectly by the putter traveling perfectly straight from 5 feet and see the affects. 
 

 

 

 

Agree. It’s curiosity for me. I just found it funny when I tried to photo the impact point of the side of a dimple edge.  And realized how many angles the dimples side had.