Chuck Kennedy wrote:. . . As a loft putter, I tend to land near the basket on misses. So even if I might be the partner who is much better and typically putts second, on certain putts due to danger, I might offer to putt first so if I miss, my partner can feel more comfortable to give it a run.
Yes, I do this too - not that I'm a great putter, but my misses usually land close. If I am partnered with a spin putter, I usually offer to putt first on a fast green.
This is where personalities also come into play. I definitely putt better putting second - I suppose it helps me focus. I have had partners who are better putters than me, but who putt better when it is not "do or die." In that situation I let them go first or we alternate.
One thing I do find with doubles or especially triples - it can be difficult for each player to get enough chances to retain their putting mojo during the round. If you are playing favorite shot and one player parks their drive/approach, the other partner(s) can putt from one of the other discs that landed further away. This helps each partner get a few long putts in during the round, and it is low risk because the last partner has an easy putt if they miss. This (and the righty/lefty thing) is why I prefer favorite shot over best shot.
There ya go, Mark, a conversation . . .
IMO putting Mojo comes not from lots of chances but from making the putts you get and the confidence which flows from watching them stick in the basket. I love it when I don't have to attempt putts (because my partner made already made it). There have been those magical rounds where I go an hour or two between putts. Confidence doesn't have to be personal (I know I can make it), it can also be confidence in the team (We know we can make it).
As for picking the shot farther away to putt from merely to keep Mojo for the round, this is something I have never seen any team do. This is just showing off.
Or craziness, or something. How can Mojo be harmed by drop-in putts?
Triples can be a good format depending on the number and level of players. If you happen to have 9 players and the group wants to mob it (play all together), then triples is the fastest way as 2/3rds of the drives and upshots get picked up. If you had 6 players with 2 Pros and 4 Ams the best way to get teams of equal strength is triples.
The difference between Random draw and Engineered teams (attempts to make teams relatively equal in strength) depends on what the goals of the group are. Random allows the 2 best players to potentially become partners, sometimes making them a prohibitive favorite. It also allows the 2 weakest players to become partners, essentially assuring their defeat. The advantage of this format, especially for a league which adopts a permanent format, is that it keeps the league attractive to the top players and keeps them coming back.
I ran a league for years where I created the format any given week based on the number and level of the players who showed up, always trying for a format which created the most equal teams. The lowest players liked it but the Pros did not and eventually stopped attending. Pros, while MUCH more likely to obnoxious than others, are an advantage to a league even if they take most of the winnings because they expose their skills to players who would not otherwise witness those shots. Lower players improve by playing against better players much faster. It is tough to figure the game out on your own.
When a league uses Random draw, it should IMO, assign groups and starting holes. If you let the Pros both have the chance of picking another Pro partner AND allow them to choose their own groups, they will inevitably go off with their Pro buddies. Thus, their greatest value to the group, EXPOSURE to the Ams, gets watered down. When playing groups are randomly assigned it makes a friendlier, less cliquish league.
Even in a Random draw format some allowances can be made. For example at the Sunday Kensington league I regularly play, we allow beginners and women (non-Pros) to throw from the short pads. This increases the value of those players to the teams and results in them being treated better by their partners, having more success, more fun and being more likely to return.
Chuck Kennedy, the resident mad genius of the PDGA, posted here. What few may know is that Chuck is a very good doubles player. While my memory is highly suspect it seems to me that Chuck and his partner (lefty Doctor from somewhere East?) beat me and Carlton head to head in a round at National Doubles (Round Rock, Texas) one year. Carlton, btw, is not a good doubles partner. He is great and carried my sorry behind for many tournaments. How would you like a partner who doesn't miss lines or putts?