Line or No Line?
You might have seen a recent flurry of shares from a My Golf Spy post on Instagram about the age old debate of line versus no line on the ball. We’re going to review what the post actually was trying to convey and if it’s something you should use the data collected to decide what’s best for your game.
What is this Data?
The data shown in this Instagram post is actually from a My Golf Spy test back in 2016. You can click HERE to read the full article discussing some additional details of the test. Here’s what you need to know:
The numbers shown in the post represent the number of putts required to hole out 100 times from each distance. For example, the 5 foot column and row for putts hit with a line shows 124 total putts. This means that there were 76 makes (76 1-putts) and 24 misses (24 2-putts or 48 additional putts) to give us our 124 putt total.
That total is lower than the 126 putt total for putts hit without a line from this distance and explains why the check mark in the Instagram post is by the lower of the two numbers. And no, that was not clearly explained in the caption or comment section of the post. The full results are shown below.
Problems with the test
Some of the problems with a test like this should be obvious to any thoughtful individual. First, a large enough sample size is required to properly assess data. 10 players is not enough to determine a pattern.
Shortly behind that is the use of a standardized putter. For most players, the putter selection impacts their ability to manage aim, start line, and speed. Using a new and random putter for the purposes of this test rather than each of their gamers contaminates this data collection.
What’s Missing?
We’re left to assume that since there were 10 testers, each tester was required to play 10 holes from each distance. However, in this type of test, we need to know the following to better judge the results which are solely based around the make percentage:
Are the players hitting these putts consecutively from each distance or are they alternating locations for space between repetitions?
What is the slope and direction?
What is the green speed?
Were some of these misses actually decent putts that just lipped out due to slight speed, start line, or randomness errors like spike marks?
What is the approximate handicap of our 10 testers?
What is the individual putting performance relative to the handicap of our 10 testers?
I think we all know someone who is a 5 handicap in spite of their putting and another who is a 5 handicap on the strength of their putting. That would undoubtedly influence a make percentage driven test.
Scope
Lastly, this test is lacking in its scope of measurements. Solely defining better or worse based on whether or not a putt is holed in the test is very limited.
Instead, we should be assessing a person’s ability to get the ball started towards their intended target with and without the line. And we should further be collecting this information across different slope percentages and directions. And let’s not forget that the tour players are making less than half their putts from outside of 8 feet. Perhaps this test should focus on 4, 7, and 10 feet instead.
Now if only there were some technology out there to define a player’s chosen target and then assess a player’s ability to launch the ball in that direction… But hey, you never know what might show up in The Garage.
