Bryson says he is now compressing dimple edges on putts

[jdowning111]

Compressing a ball on short putts 🤔What are you sniffing this week Bryson?

[Krt22]

The solution is clearly a dimple less ball

 

[tacklingdummy]

Not sure why people are thinking that what Bryson said is crazy talk. Again he is basing it on science from previous dimple error studies from Pelz and other scientists. It is no different than the golf industry talking about marginal errors from MOI, gear effect, ball skipping first few inches of putt, putter face technology, face balance, toe weighting, etc, etc. 

[Soloman1]

Yeah, you guys are right.

 

Those people researching the effect years ago were stupid. They should have asked y'all first. Oh wait, if you didn't know about it, how did they know about it? Must have been witchcraft.

 

Who cares about a possible 1° deflection measured with video. Let's not make this about facts.

 

And damn, what were those ball companies thinking years ago when they tested a ball with a symmetrical small flat spot for putting to try to address the effect since it's not true?

 

Of course, the degradation of the ball flight was significant enough that it wasn't worth it. Everyone wants more distance. If it were true, which must not be, since it's all nonsense.

 

Oh, did y'all hear about those ridiculous new ball flight laws? What morons. It's not true either. We all know that the balls starts on the line of the path and curves toward the face. That's why we close the face at impact to hook the ball. We've always done it that way.

 

Science, schmience...

 

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by Soloman1

[bscinstnct]

13 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

Yeah, you guys are right.

 

Those people researching the effect years ago were stupid. They should have asked y'all first. Oh wait, if you didn't know about it, how did they know about it? Must have been witchcraft.

 

Who cares about a possible 1° deflection measured with video. Let's not make this about facts.

 

And damn, what were those ball companies thinking years ago when they tested a ball with a symmetrical small flat spot for putting to try to address the effect since it's not true?

 

Of course, the degradation of the ball flight was significant enough that it wasn't worth it. Everyone wants more distance. If it were true, which must not be, since it's all nonsense.

 

Oh, did y'all hear about those ridiculous new ball flight laws? What morons. It's not true either. We all know that the balls starts on the line of the path and curves toward the face. That's why we close the face at impact to hook the ball. We've always done it that way.

 

Science, schmience...

 

 

 

A *1 deflection translates to a whole inch offline for a 5 foot putt.

 

Even with this only being a percentage of of the time the edge of a dimple is hit, we’d se a great deal more head scratching out there by tour pros as putts with no break missed the cup completely. 
 

Pros practice and bang in 20 five footers in a row. I’ve never heard a pro discuss this. 
 

I mean, take TW. How he never notice that a 4 foot putt just occasionally goes an almost a whole inch off line and miss the hole.

 

I buy the theory but there’s nowhere near the data to prove this *1 thing just from the dimple. 

Edited October 11, 2021 by bscinstnct

[Soloman1]

People don't routinely hit the edge of the dimple and get the maximum deflection. That's a rarity. It's usually much less. The possibility is not the probability. I believe I said it was between zero and 1°.

 

Also, the contour and grain will accentuate or negate the effect. As I said, it's kinda messy. Can it be as much as a 1" deflection at five feet? Sure. Not likely, but it can happen. But, it's flat and no cross grain and the target line was the center of the hole, it's still going in if it's within the delivery speed is OK.

 

On a straight, flat 5 foot putt with a (rare) 1" deflection, the outside of the ball will be inside the edge by 1/8" so you're not going to miss.

 

The PGA Tour record is 93 putts for a 72 hole tournament, one or two could be affected.

 

The average is only 80% for 5 foot putts.

 

I don't see it as a big problem either, because the odds of a 1° deflection are pretty low. But it isn't a non-existent phenomenon.

[CasualLie]

Paddy Ice must be laughing his butt off.  Guy beats BDC with stellar putting while BDC did miss some close ones in that playoff, and now look...full on psycho mode.

 

To hear BDC tell it, we won/lost the Ryder Cup all based on dimples the last 20 years.

[bekgolf]

45 minutes ago, CasualLie said:

 

 

To hear BDC tell it, we won/lost the Ryder Cup all based on dimples the last 20 years.

 

He said that?

[TiScape]

5 pages in one day on dimple compression/hitting the edge of a dimple while putting… I think we all need to get a life! 🤣

[CasualLie]

1 minute ago, bekgolf said:

 

He said that?

 

Not exactly, but winning Ryder Cups is all about making those putts, especially the 5 footers...Some how Team Euro hit dimples better than U.S.

 

I am being facetious, but this how absurd this conversation gets.

 

Let's just say there is a such thing as a sharp dimple knocking a 5 footer off-line.   And let's just say this ridiculous nonsense that entire careers, FedEx Cups, missed cuts...call all come down to one putt.  So how do we know some of the made putts that meant so much were actually misread or hit offline, just by a fraction, but the sharp dimple knocked it in?

 

Point being, it's golf...over the long haul it all evens out. 

[Mr. Grumpy]

6 minutes ago, CasualLie said:

 

Not exactly, but winning Ryder Cups is all about making those putts, especially the 5 footers...Some how Team Euro hit dimples better than U.S.

 

I am being facetious, but this how absurd this conversation gets.

 

Let's just say there is a such thing as a sharp dimple knocking a 5 footer off-line.   And let's just say this ridiculous nonsense that entire careers, FedEx Cups, missed cuts...call all come down to one putt.  So how do we know some of the made putts that meant so much were actually misread or hit offline, just by a fraction, but the sharp dimple knocked it in?

 

Point being, it's golf...over the long haul it all evens out. 

So you were casually lying then... 

[huskydawg]

I mean, has anyone ever tried putting on a wood floor?  The ball bounces every which way because of **gasp** the dimples.  If we could buy a perfectly smooth dimple-less ball to compare, I bet the roll would be much smoother.

 

Now the green is soft, so it doesn't have as great of an effect on the roll.  But from the putterface, it is certainly possible it could deflect off the ridge of a dimple and launch in a strange way.  The extent of that deflection might be minor, but I'm not playing for 10s of millions of dollars.  He's the pro, so I'll let him worry about it.

[Soloman1]

The effect is also influenced by the speed of the green. Hard fast greens (wood floors?) and balls moving slowly (down hill) will wiggle as they slow just before stopping due to the dimples. If you have never seen that and played hard, fast greens, you aren't as observant as you might want to be.

 

But, yes. Obviously weekend golfers aren't even close to being tuned into the nuances of golf as professionals or very elite amateurs are.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Soloman1

[TiScape]

Can we all agree that dimples will slightly impact the the way a golf ball rolls and comes off the putter face? Is anyone arguing that they don’t?? Haha. So what’s the solution to this problem for pros? Hit it harder/compress those dimples, rub all the dimples off with steel wool, softer insert, just deal with it??? 🤔 

Edited October 12, 2021 by TiScape

[straightshot7]

1 hour ago, TiScape said:

Can we all agree that dimples will slightly impact the the way a golf ball rolls and comes off the putter face? Is anyone arguing that they don’t?? Haha. So what’s the solution to this problem for pros? Hit it harder/compress those dimples, rub all the dimples off with steel wool, softer insert, just deal with it??? 🤔 

Position the ball so that the imperfection causes upward/downward movement rather than sideways movement 

[TiScape]

48 minutes ago, straightshot7 said:

Position the ball so that the imperfection causes upward/downward movement rather than sideways movement 

The “imperfection”??? Are you saying position the golf ball so that the putter face doesn’t hit the edge of a dimple? You’re messing with me right?! 😂 

Edited October 12, 2021 by TiScape

[BlackDiamondPar5]

13 hours ago, Krt22 said:

The solution is clearly a dimple less ball

 

A dimpleless ball would also solve the distance issue 🤣

[drbonesvt]

On 10/10/2021 at 12:14 PM, mhudson111 said:

Bryson says he is now putting 5ft and in short putts better because he is compressing the dimple edges

 

🙄

https://golf.com/gear/bryson-dechambeau-short-putts-ball-dimples/?amp=1

 

“So I did some study and some research on the golf ball and the geometry of those dimples,” DeChambeau said on the podcast. “And so, and this is getting a bit technical, so the dimples, they have edges on them, right. And if you hit the dimple on the edge at the wrong angle, it can come off horizontally or vertically.”

 

“So the firmer you hit it, the more the golf ball compresses. So when you’re hitting something a lot harder, it’s compressing and it doesn’t come off at a weird angle. 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.”

 

For cause Drug test and for bullsh*t

 

 

[straightshot7]

12 hours ago, TiScape said:

The “imperfection”??? Are you saying position the golf ball so that the putter face doesn’t hit the edge of a dimple? You’re messing with me right?! 😂 

i really don't know. It seemed like maybe that's what Bryson was suggesting, but you will have to ask him. I personally haven't studied it. 

I never miss from 6 feet and in so it hasn't been an issue. 🤣

[TiScape]

2 minutes ago, straightshot7 said:

i really don't know. It seemed like maybe that's what Bryson was suggesting, but you will have to ask him. I personally haven't studied it. 

I never miss from 6 feet and in so it hasn't been an issue. 🤣

I’d ask him, but then I’d have to listen to the answer.  🙄 

🤣

[bobfoster]

On 10/11/2021 at 4:48 PM, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

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

 Sorry man, my bad. I had highlighted a couple sentences in a post you were responding to, and it somehow inserted my comment in your post instead of his. Metaphorically speaking, I hit the edge of a WRX dimple, but clearly didn't compress it enough hahahahahahahaha!

Edited October 13, 2021 by bobfoster

[mhudson111]

I found an actual study on horizontal error

 

Putts of 3.2 m were completed with a
 mechanical putting arm (four putter-ball combinations, total of 160 trials) and human participants (two putter-ball combinations, total of 337 trials).

 

The variability caused by ‘dimple error’
 was minimal with the mechanical putting arm and not evident with human participants. Differences between the mechanical putting arm and human participants may be due to the way impulse is imparted on the ball. Thereforeit is concluded that variability of impact point on the golf ball has a minimal effect on putting performance.

[bscinstnct]

8 hours ago, mhudson111 said:

I found an actual study on horizontal error

 

Putts of 3.2 m were completed with a
 mechanical putting arm (four putter-ball combinations, total of 160 trials) and human participants (two putter-ball combinations, total of 337 trials).

 

The variability caused by ‘dimple error’
 was minimal with the mechanical putting arm and not evident with human participants. Differences between the mechanical putting arm and human participants may be due to the way impulse is imparted on the ball. Thereforeit is concluded that variability of impact point on the golf ball has a minimal effect on putting performance.

 

Thank you. This makes a lot more sense. 
 

Wonder if BD will comment ; )

[Socrates]

How in (insert deity of your choice) name did all those old guys make all those putts with balata balls that were rarely round and many times way out of balance?  Oh, yeah.  Talent.  Even Mac O'Grady wouldn't go down this rabbit hole.

[Ferguson]

This topic is the most exciting and controversial thing I've experienced in sports since the accidental shooting of Spider Sabich. 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

10 hours ago, mhudson111 said:

I found an actual study on horizontal error

 

Putts of 3.2 m were completed with a
 mechanical putting arm (four putter-ball combinations, total of 160 trials) and human participants (two putter-ball combinations, total of 337 trials).

 

The variability caused by ‘dimple error’
 was minimal with the mechanical putting arm and not evident with human participants. Differences between the mechanical putting arm and human participants may be due to the way impulse is imparted on the ball. Thereforeit is concluded that variability of impact point on the golf ball has a minimal effect on putting performance.

Thank you for posting.  I just wish they did the study for shorter putts, sub 5 feet which BD was talking about. 3.2M is 10.5Ft. If I had the equipment I'd love to do it myself.

 

I still say dimples aren't a factor, at least off the club face.  I'd hypothesize the putter stays in contact with the ball enough in microseconds so that ball slides along the putter face during impact such that the dimples are flat against the face so that the ball comes off straight.  The major factor with missed short putts even on a perfectly flat surface is going to be the club face angle at impact.  Even the best putters in the world have occasional trouble with this.  Face angle being off even 1 degree translates to 1" at 5 feet.

 

     

 

 

[Soloman1]

- "The range of results 269 observed for the horizontal launch angle were -1.00 to 0.71°" - p11

 

- The experiment used a 12 foot putt, not a short putt. The entire premise of Pelz and others is that the low impact velocity of short putts on hard and fast greens, particularly downhill contributes to the effect and is greater when the player intent is to die the ball at the hole. This was clearly stated by Pelz.

 

- This experiment did not observe or measure anything related to the effect as stated by Pelz and brought up by DeChambeau.

 

- Longer putts, (e.g. 12 feet like the experiment) have little effect because of greater ball surface compression from the putter face and was never considered an issue to Pelz or by DeChambeau.

This study has no relationship to the original problem. The problem was solved by hitting putts with more speed.

 

------------>

 

In the "old days," golf balls had a seam and players aligned the seam vertically when putting as the intended location to contact the ball. There was no dimple effect because greens were so much slower. The slower the green, the faster the ball is traveling, the more compression at impact, negating any dimple effect.

 

Mac O'Grady went down the putting rabbit hole deep enough to play with an 18" putter, the shortest club length allowed.

 

It is a modern day problem that is solved by not trying to die short putts at the hole.

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, Soloman1 said:

- "The range of results 269 observed for the horizontal launch angle were -1.00 to 0.71°" - p11

 

- The experiment used a 12 foot putt, not a short putt. The entire premise of Pelz and others is that the low impact velocity of short putts on hard and fast greens, particularly downhill contributes to the effect and is greater when the player intent is to die the ball at the hole. This was clearly stated by Pelz.

 

- This experiment did not observe or measure anything related to the effect as stated by Pelz and brought up by DeChambeau.

 

- Longer putts, (e.g. 12 feet like the experiment) have little effect because of greater ball surface compression from the putter face and was never considered an issue to Pelz or by DeChambeau.

This study has no relationship to the original problem. The problem was solved by hitting putts with more speed.

 

------------>

 

In the "old days," golf balls had a seam and players aligned the seam vertically when putting as the intended location to contact the ball. There was no dimple effect because greens were so much slower. The slower the green, the faster the ball is traveling, the more compression at impact, negating any dimple effect.

 

Mac O'Grady went down the putting rabbit hole deep enough to play with an 18" putter, the shortest club length allowed.

 

It is a modern day problem that is solved by not trying to die short putts at the hole.

 

Is the Pelz study done under controlled conditions and large enough sample size to really be accurate?

 

 

 

[Krt22]

Some golf statisticians say Tiger was so good from 5ft and in because he was so consistent with his start lines that he could afford to hit them very firm and neglect the smaller capture size. Much like his course management skills, perhaps this was yet another one of the things he figured out before it was really quantified and backed by data.

[Frankensteins Monster]

If my memory is correct, there were putter inserts, may still be, specifically made to offset the deflection of the ball from hitting it on the edge of a dimple.