An overly technical question about Dave Pelz' 17 inches.

[TheCityGame]

How far do you try to hit it past the hole?

Main part below is in BOLD.
This is real geeky, but there's a "physics of golf" thread going so maybe someone will find it interesting. . .
Some of you may or may not be familiar with the Dave Pelz idea that the optimal putt runs out 17 inches past the hole. That's what he claims from rolling thousands of balls off tracks at holes on lots of greens. (A lot of people say 2 feet or 18 inches, or whatever. It's immaterial for the sake of this question.)


The main reason that you have to hit it so hard and not just let it die at the hole is that imperfections in the green tend to knock slow rolling balls off track. One of the primary factors in this is the "volcano" effect. When you get to a green, there's a trampled "donut" area starting about 12 inches from the hole, and radiating out a couple feel. Nobody usually steps on the green within 12 inches of the hole.

The 17 inches is the same from no matter the distance the putt is (obviously it doesn't really matter on tap-ins).

Here's the main point from that : the 17 inches gives you the best chance to MAKE THAT PARTICULAR PUTT. I'm trying to look one step further.

Now, given that none of us putt perfectly, I'm going to assume "normal errors" in putting distance for an ordinary golfer. So, I'm trying to hit a putt 17" past the hole. If I hit a bunch of these, a couple will be 2+ feet short of 17 inches past (so, 7" short of the hole), a couple will be 2+ feet long (roughly 40 inches from the hole). A majority of these will (hopefully) be within a foot of 17 inches (7 inches past the hole up to 27 inches past the hole).

Now, being 40 inches long is clearly a much worse error than being 7 inches short. But, if you start playing "die at the hole" speed, all of a sudden you're removing 40 inchers from the equation, but all of your "short errors" are now coming up totally short. You don't make a lot of one-putts you were making before.

So, basically, I'm wondering what distance past the hole is really the best for minimizing your overall number of putts (trying to increase 1-putts, while removing 3-putts).

Any thoughts on the issue would be interesting. Also just wondering, "how far past the hole do YOU try to hit it?"

Personally, I try to think about rolling it 12 inches past the hole (that's where I usually pick my spot to roll it to). But, I think I still come up short too often, and don't make enough one-putts. So, I would like to start getting more aggressive on putts.

[DLiver]

I believe Pelz 17" recommendation is for the lowest overall number of putts. In other words, it the speed/distance that maximizes both your chance to make the first putt and the second putt, thereby producing the lowest number of putts overall for a round.

[cbrian]

6 inches uphill and12 inches down

[DaveLeeNC]

[quote name='DLiver' timestamp='1313085765' post='3474101']
I believe Pelz 17" recommendation is for the lowest overall number of putts. In other words, it the speed/distance that maximizes both your chance to make the first putt and the second putt, thereby producing the lowest number of putts overall for a round.
[/quote]


Assuming that I recall my Pelz reading correctly, this is incorrect. It is specifically based on the 'optimum speed' to hold a line vs. 'going to fast past the cup' thereby optimizing the probability of making a putt.

Any attempt to optimize the 'right distance' past the cup in general would have to include the ability of the golfer to make short putts, the golfer's ability to lag accurately, and the length of the putt (none of which is part of the '17 inch solution').

dave

ps. From outside 20 to 25' the optimum distance past the cup is zero inches (for my putting).

[atlanta golfer]

[quote name='DaveLeeNC' timestamp='1313092379' post='3474583']
[quote name='DLiver' timestamp='1313085765' post='3474101']
I believe Pelz 17" recommendation is for the lowest overall number of putts. In other words, it the speed/distance that maximizes both your chance to make the first putt and the second putt, thereby producing the lowest number of putts overall for a round.
[/quote]


Assuming that I recall my Pelz reading correctly, this is incorrect. It is specifically based on the 'optimum speed' to hold a line vs. 'going to fast past the cup' thereby optimizing the probability of making a putt.

Any attempt to optimize the 'right distance' past the cup in general would have to include the ability of the golfer to make short putts, the golfer's ability to lag accurately, and the length of the putt (none of which is part of the '17 inch solution').

dave

ps. From outside 20 to 25' the optimum distance past the cup is zero inches (for my putting).


[/quote]

+1 on that comment

[highergr0und]

It's been a while since I read it, but isn't that number based on gathered stats from pros rather than physics of holing a putt? That's always been my beef with that number, that being the fact that it all revolves around a missed putt.

If you want some other fun physics/technical based putting stuff, look up Geoff Mangum. Lots of great stuff on speed, fall lines, etc.

I personally use my knowledge of the speed of the greens, angle, and my core putting stroke to make my best guess as to where to aim in relation to the hole. On downhill putts, I often pick a point several feet before the hole that I want to hit it to and on uphill it can be several feet past. Most of my misses end up in a pretty small circle and I rarely 3 putt. Mangum's stuff really, really helped my putting game, specifically his core putt. It makes it much easier to gauge distance and be able to dial in green speeds quickly from course to course.

[hoganfan924]

It's clearly as the OP points out a 2 part question.

According to Pelz, Sweeney and Mangum, (the leading experts on the subject) the optimal speed of roll when the ball hits the hole varies depending on the smoothness, slope and speed of the greens. It could vary between about 6" and 24" (or more for a very fast downhiller). Pelz used 17" as an average. Sweeney does his predictive model based on 12." Mangum prefers capture speed and doesn't like to talk distance past the hole. Of course, these numbers are based purely on the physics and would be with a machine, not a person.

So the 2nd part of the question is what distance past the hole should a person target that would over the long term, result in him taking the fewest number of putts possible? That answer is quite variable, IMO because it depends greatly on each golfers ability to control speed and to make short putts. Someone who has world class speed control but is not a good short putter may target 6-12" past. Of course they will leave some putts short but less than someone who has worse speed control. Someone who is a great putter inside of 5 feet may do better overall targeting 17-24" past. There have been great putters in the past who liked to trickle them in (Nicklaus) and others who were bold (Calcavecchia). Very individual thing.

Personally, I go for the 12-17" past because I tend to leave more short than I should.

[SheriffBooth]

This is somewhat off-topic, I guess, but I subscribe to the Rotella concept of picking a spot near the hole on the target line I want, and letting my subconscious deal with the speed.

I used Pelz's methods about a decade ago and it was effective for awhile but then I got so bogged down in the mechanical and technical thinking that I developed a truly crushing case of the yips, and it took me years to undo what I had ingrained.

The Rotella method freed me up quite a bit. Basically it boils down to the goal being to shoot the lowest score possible and take the fewest number of putts. It's not necessarily rolling the ball past the hole if a greater percentage of those long putts turn into 3-jacks than turn into birds.

When I let go of "short" vs "long" it made me a better lag putter and eliminated most 3-putts. Even if I didn't necessarily make more birdie putts, my scores still went down.

[mikpga]

Just get your putting percentage to 100% from 4 feet and in and DONT WORRY ABOUT IT...

[againstthegrain]

17" past the hole is a generalized distance that indicates the optimum speed for holing one putt. That speed overcomes the "donut hole" and offers the greatest potential for holing putts from a variety of lines.

[TheCityGame]

Yeah, as others have said, I just opened my Pelz back up and this is what he says, "So the peak on this graph shows without a doubt that the best speed at which to roll a putt in order to sink it is that speed which will carry the ball about 17 inches past the hole if it misses!" (page 129, "Putt Like the Pros" 1989 pbk.)

it's definitely a "make this one" number. Not based on pro numbers, or averages, or "expected total putts".

Very nice write-up [b]hoganfan924. [/b]That's how I feel. . .it depends on your ability to control distance, make short putts, AND get a putt on line. I would assume that the worse a person is at getting one on line, the less past the hole they would want to roll it. And, definitely, the better you are from say 3-4', the more aggressive you can be if you have poor distance control. And, like you mentioned, it depends on the smoothness. The number isn't zero because you need to account for inconsistencies around the hole. An early morning putt, maybe think a few inches less.

[deeviant]

I've always done 1 inch per foot. I don't want it to die at the hole, but blowing by it 17 inches isn't that great either, for me.
I've been doing it this way for a while now and putting is one of the best aspects of my game. It takes a lot of practice though. I spend hours more on the putting green than anywhere else and this is what I've come to that works best for me. After you practice it a while the distance just becomes second nature and I don't actually think about it.

[deeviant]

I should add that I only practice that out to about 10 - 12 feet. Any longer than that and I want it within 2 feet.