Dear Donald,
Taking skills from practice to play is a pretty complex topic. Let me make some broad-stroke comments.
There are a number of dimensions to this issue. First, there is the way of learning the skills to begin with. Second, there are psychological differences at work. And third, there are differences in the settings. These dimensions interpenetrate one another, so they are not truly separate and distinct. At least this seems to be a useful way to discuss the matter.
TRANSFER. Transferring skills from practice to play varies in effectiveness of transfer depending mostly on the "situational similarity" of the behaviors in practice with those in play. This means you ideally want to practice what you will most likely face on the course, and you also want to practice under conditions that you will face during play. This prepares you to perform what is required for play under the same challenges of play.
There is a tremendous difference between casually rolling three balls at the same holes only 15 to 20 feet away on the same practice green for a couple of hours a day and sinking a 12 foot putt for birdie on the first hole oof the last round of a tournament when you are 3 strokes off the lead. So the suggestion of sports science is that there should be two different sorts of practice: one of elemental skills (setting up square, reading the putt, etc.), and one of on-course situations. Basically, this difference is illustrated by putting on a chalkline over and over versus posing yourself a 20-footer to win the Masters.
This difference means that some if not most of practice putting should be "full battle dress" -- one putt with one ball with a complete routine of reading, addressing, and stroking the putt, with only one result and no second chances. You get a different set of challenges doing this -- even if you know how to perform some aspect of putting skill and can do so 90% of the time, the real challenge is whether you can do so this ONE time. Practicing this way will probably reveal some things to you about yourself and about what you know and believe about your personal competence level.
The "standard" approach of practicing certain basic putts until your eyes fall out of your head (100 6-footers in a row, start over on any miss, etc.) is mostly like chalkline work. It builds a certain mechanical repetitiveness into your brain that buttresses a sense of "confidence", which really functions primarily to inhibit doubt, unfocused thoughts, and unwanted second-guessing in execution. That is certainly a positive approach, but an incomplete one.
Such rote practice is encouraged by most putting aids and drills. The underlying idea is that repetition produces correct performance execution. Actually, practice repetition produces correct practice repetition, not play performance.
This sort of practice has its place and time, but the more play-related practice should not be neglected or even considered supplementary. After basic skills are built up, the primary form of practice probably ought to be play practice.
Play is always one putt, one try, and live with the outcome. The "try" under play conditions is a spread-out, messy affair (waiting your turn, reading the putt, watching out for stepping on lines, dealing with specific surface challenges, etc.) that is much more complex than standing in one spot stroking ball after ball at the same target. The golfer would be well-advised to practice play, and not just practice.
Another difference is the usefulness of a pre-round warmup on the practice green versus practice sessions on non-play days. The purpose of the pre-round warmup is to prepare for play in the next few minutes or so. It is a time to assess what the expected condition of greens on the course might be; to revivify your integrated sense of targeting, touch, and stroke; to get your routine happening; to buck-up your confidence; and possibly to spot an immediately-apparent flaw that needs attention. Most pros speak of trying to get a certain "feel" in their pre-round putting. Bob Charles watches to see if his targeting skills are off in a predictable way so he can make a band-aid adjustment to that day's variability in order to compensate for his current deficiency. He does not, in contrast, try to understand and fix his problem. Rather, he has to play with what he has that day -- win, lose, or draw. That's really why "confidence" is useful -- it's a lid on a boiling pot on play-day so the golfer doesn't respond to the urge to diagnose and practice for cure.
There are other aspects to skill transfer. For example, some research shows that designing practice that inculcates skills implicitly rather than explicitly (doing the right thing more than thinking about doing the right thing) helps the golfer under pressure. The idea is if the golfer spends too much time and effort thinking about how to do the right thing during practice, he builds a skill that does not break free of the structure of thoughts that comes with it. Under pressure, this thought structure is like so many backdoors to the fortress for anxiety-related defocused thought and emotion patterns to harm performance. In this connection, a certain mental tougness is needed that is more than just not flinching if someone snaps a picture in your putt's backstroke. This sort of toughness bars the anxiety as much as possible, deals with the remainder, and doesn't tolerate defocused thoughts and emotions. Tiger Woods, for example, says that under pressure he reverts strictly to performing his standard routine, and is so "automatic" on these occasions that he frequently is not really conscious of putting and doesn't remember stroking the putt.
PSYCHE. The psychological differences are mostly about staying in the present. Staying in the present in a two-hour practice session is fairly easy. You're unplugged from anything that has consequences during that alloted time. You hope to accomplish some modest level of improvement if possible, but simple "maintenance" of skills is regarded as a legitimate practice goal, too. During play, everything has immediate and permanent consequences. Consequences are how the past becomes the future, and neither is the present. When you stay in the present, you are immersed in the action of the one play at hand, whether that is a tee shot, approach shot, bunker play, or putt. The consequences of outcome should be obvious and the only way to give your best chance of a positive outcome is to recognize or ignore the outcome and get focused exclusively on performing in the present.
Another large part of the psychology of play is control. Anxiety and emotions challenge control, so psychology aids the matter by reducing or avoiding anxiety and emotions and suggesting ways to recapture control despite these influences. Psychological training and interventions are designed to help the golfer perform in the face of these disrupting influences. Such ideas as "who cares about this putt?" and anxiety is "self-inflicted" and a golfer needs "emotional equanimity and balance" during play without sharp highs or lows in reaction fall into this category. If "control" is thought of as "smooth sailing" regardless of buffeting winds, the golfer needs a good rudder and a steady hand on the tiller. Basic competence acquired by study, practice and experience, provides a base for steadiness under pressure, and it also allows the golfer to absorb frustration and disappointment or even poor execution during a round. As Tony Lema said, "Just because I missed that short putt doesn't mean I have to hit my next drive out of bounds." So the golfer needs to be able to keep moving forward secure in his basic competence, despite setbacks in performance. The trick seems to be to maintain high expectations based on a realistic belief in one's basic competence that carries over after what can only be called a failure on one putt to a confident, undoubting approach to the next putt and its challenges.
SETTING. One partial explanation for putting well in practice and not so well in play relates to the differences in settings. Practicing on the same practice green is like hanging out in your own den. Eventually, you learn every stick of furniture and other items so well that you can navigate the room blindfolded without bumping into anything. Greens on the course are more like the living rooms of your bosses at work -- unfamiliar, better appointed than your den, formal, and slightly daunting and uncomfortable to visit briefly on a business-social occasion. The home-course advantage is real because of this. There are "horses for course" for similar reasons. Lee Trevino once commented that the golfer needs to believe that every course he plays is his home course. That's a good trick, but it also helps if you know the course and its greens like the back of your hand. Pros look to their caddies for prior experience on certain courses, and look to past events on these courses to build up a level of comfort and familiarity with the greens. Some pros enlist the aid of local caddies or caddies better skilled on certain types of greens. I recall that Phil Mickelson got help with the Bermuda greens in Geaorgia this past year from a pinch-hitting caddie.
The message is that you want a reality-based comfort and familiarity with every green you face. This is not often possible for amateurs who rove from course to course with their pals, arriving at a special-treat pricy course he's never or seldom played before. Pros have practice rounds for that, and spend considerable effort to assess the course, map the course and greens, and devise a game plan for playing the holes. They also play the same course year in and year out. It usually takes a Northern golfer raised on bent grass greens several years to get used to playing Southern Bermuda grass greens. The same is true of East Coast and West Coast golfers and greens.
The obvious way to gain comfort on greens is to play them frequently. If that is not possible, then the golfer should learn the greens quickly and astutely. Pros have a big advantage here not only from the frequency of play, but also from the variety of courses and greens faced. This forces pros to be very quick and astute learners of new greens. There are some tricks to this, but generally the golfer ought to put some deliberate focus on sizing up greens and conditions so that he can face unknown greens with a sense of dominance and impunity. Golfers are too intimidated by different, unfamiliar greens. Dominate every green you face, or at least be comfortable friends with them.
I would encourage you to draw a sharp disyinction between practice for the purpose of elemental skills acquisition and practicing for the purpose of playing. And I would encourage you to recognize the differences between practice and play. Ultimately, all practice needs to be in support of playing.
I'm sure this is pretty rambling and diffuse, but it's a very complex subject. I think that the world of golf in its current conventions is no where near the patterns of practice that could help tremendously in carrying skills from the practice green to the course. There's plenty more to be thought and said on this score.
Specifically responding to your concern about putts outside 10 feet on the course, I would point out that the best on Tour at 10 feet is Loren Roberts, and he averages about 4-5 out of ten from this range. So you probably should expect to be missing more than you make outside 10 feet. Tiger Woods has many many days when he makes NOTHING outside 10 feet. The goal you want to set is to combine approach play accuracy with putting so that at the end of the day you can often sink 30-40 percent of your first putts. If you one-putt 6 of 18 holes and par the rest with two-putts, you will likely shoot under par consistently, but that implies a pro-level game altogether. So be patient and forgiving with yourself while you advance to that level.
Cheers!
Geoff Mangum
Putting Theorist and Instructor
PuttingZone.com
http://puttingzone.com
Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction.
Over half a million visits and growing strong ...