Is There a Perfect Difficulty for Putting Practice? A Randomized Trial of 150 Participants

On a practice green, a simple target can feel persuasive: make seven putts out of ten. But does a particular make rate actually produce faster learning? A randomized trial published in the June 2026 issue of Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport offers a useful caution: the researchers did not identify a single optimal task difficulty under the conditions they tested.

The paper, “Testing for an Optimal Task Difficulty of Skill Acquisition in Golf Putting,” was written by Masahiro Yamada, Mahdi Babapour Lashanlou, Jalal Dehghanizadeh and Hassan Mohammadzadeh. It first appeared online on 16 December 2025, before appearing in the June 2026 print issue. This is a study of motor learning, not a product endorsement.

What the researchers tested

The team randomly allocated 150 people, with a mean age of 21.75 years, equally among three practice conditions. Task difficulty was defined through the anticipated percentage of successful putts: 60–70% for the more achievable condition, 20–30% for the middle condition and below 10% for the hardest condition. Each person practiced 50 putts and took a retention test 24 hours later.

To make the groups comparable, the researchers examined normalized performance and the coefficient of variation rather than merely comparing raw holed-putt totals across differently demanding tasks. This distinction matters: a harder putt will typically produce a different raw score even when the underlying skill is unchanged.

The result and its limits

The study found no difference among the groups in either the pattern or the magnitude of learning. Within this design, the evidence did not support designating one of the tested success-rate bands as the best for acquiring the skill.

That is not the same as proving that difficulty never matters. The trial concerned putting, a limited 50-attempt practice period, a relatively young sample and retention after one day. It cannot tell us which approach is best over an entire season, whether a handicap will fall, or whether the conclusion transfers to driving and chipping. Nor does it justify deliberately setting every golfer a task they fail nine times out of ten.

An original 30-putt observation session

The following session is an editorial self-check devised by GOLFTWITT, not an intervention tested in this trial. It helps track different outcomes without promising improvement.

1. Choose three putt lengths suitable for your ability—for example 1.5, 3 and 5 metres on a reasonably level green. Adjust them if necessary; do not force a preset make percentage.
2. Play 30 putts, alternating distances in ten three-putt cycles. Use your normal pre-putt routine before each attempt rather than making a rapid-fire pile of identical strokes.
3. Record whether each putt was holed. For a miss, note its approximate finishing distance from the cup and whether it stopped short, long, left or right.
4. Repeat a comparable session a day or more later, ideally on a similar surface. Compare the overall distribution rather than one particularly lucky putt.

These notes can help reveal recurring distance-control or directional misses. Without controlling green speed, fatigue and other variables, however, this personal test cannot establish why a change occurred.

Why there is no magic 70% rule

Easier putts may be convenient for observing start line and routine; tougher ones expose a player to different decisions and distances. That is an editorial coaching interpretation, not a demonstrated advantage in this particular experiment. If practice has become unproductive, a qualified teaching professional can help examine contact, aim, green reading, distance control and the choice of drill.

The takeaway: a single success percentage is not a proven universal recipe for learning golf putting. This 150-participant experiment did not find an optimum within its design; assessing the quality of attempts and monitoring progress over time is a more measured response.

Research: Yamada M. et al., Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2026, 97(2), pp. 282–294; first published online 16 December 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2025.2587799. Abstract: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41400972/.

Image: Semevent / Wikimedia Commons, “Golf putter on green.jpg,” CC0 1.0 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Golf_putter_on_green.jpg; https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). Illustrative photograph, not taken for the trial.