Titleist golf ball study; Finally, some facts added to the debate

18911131419

Comments

  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,262 ✭✭


    I think you have in a miraculous way missed that one:



    http://www.golfwrx.c...ns-on-pga-tour/



    Btw



    You will find, that the size of the driver was not as important for the increase in distance, than that they are made out of titanium.



    The funny thing is, that this chart still doesn´t take into account, what the courses with enhanced fairways contributed to that increase! image/read.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':read:' />



    And last, but not least, you see, that driving distance kept about the same since more than a decade.




    Interesting graph. Clearly, the driving distance problem (if there ever was one) has been brought under control and should be a non issue going forward.



    Also interesting is that the longest hitters on the planet are playing the WEB.COM tour. I wonder why that is when distance (to some on this board) is so important.
  • Lime SharkLime Shark Members Posts: 311
    Bye wrote:




    I truly hate lines on golf balls and people using them as an alignment aid.




    It only takes two dots on a ball to make a line you can use for alignment, which would be impossible to outlaw. Actually, just one dot--put a dot a little over from the number and you have a line.



    No reason trying to outlaw something you can't outlaw.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,262 ✭✭
    rawdog wrote:


    Below are plots showing how each area of the game relates to scoring. Read it as you move from left to right, you move from being worse than the field to better than the field at that skill. Vertical axis is total strokes gained, a comparable measure to scoring average.



    All skills have positive correlations. Obviously, the better you are at a specific skill, the better you are overall. What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, not many have really separated themselves from the pack. Whereas, with tee shots and approaches, you start to see more variation in the values.



    It's tough to draw conclusions from this data. But if you look at the standard deviation of each category, you'll find:



    STD Dev Tee= .415

    STD Dev Approach = .367

    STD Dev Short = .211

    STD Dev Putting = .312



    There's almost double the variation of skill off the tee versus on the putting green. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on why this might be.

    What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, it's not too easy to sep




    Wonderful data. Is it possible to isolate one or two golfers (Spieth and Dustin, for example) so that we can see where they are on the grid?
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,262 ✭✭
    Lime Shark wrote:

    Bye wrote:


    I truly hate lines on golf balls and people using them as an alignment aid.




    It only takes two dots on a ball to make a line you can use for alignment, which would be impossible to outlaw. Actually, just one dot--put a dot a little over from the number and you have a line.



    No reason trying to outlaw something you can't outlaw.




    And why would anybody care about alignment aids on a golf ball?
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,015 ✭✭
    edited Dec 13, 2017 #306

    rawdog wrote:


    Below are plots showing how each area of the game relates to scoring. Read it as you move from left to right, you move from being worse than the field to better than the field at that skill. Vertical axis is total strokes gained, a comparable measure to scoring average.



    All skills have positive correlations. Obviously, the better you are at a specific skill, the better you are overall. What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, not many have really separated themselves from the pack. Whereas, with tee shots and approaches, you start to see more variation in the values.



    It's tough to draw conclusions from this data. But if you look at the standard deviation of each category, you'll find:



    STD Dev Tee= .415

    STD Dev Approach = .367

    STD Dev Short = .211

    STD Dev Putting = .312



    There's almost double the variation of skill off the tee versus on the putting green. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on why this might be.

    What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, it's not too easy to sep




    Wonderful data. Is it possible to isolate one or two golfers (Spieth and Dustin, for example) so that we can see where they are on the grid?




    It's possible... closer to noonish EST. I actually have a meeting this morning...



    But here is something quick to chew on... 110 of the 190 guys on Tour had positive total strokes gained (it's not a perfect half the field because a lot of guys with negative strokes gained didn't have enough data collected on them to be listed, or aren't PGA Tour Members).



    Of those 110 guys, 73% had positive strokes gained off the tee. 77% had positive strokes gained approach. 65% had positive strokes gained short. 63% had positive strokes gained putting.



    This reinforces what I see in the charts, and suggests to me that it is easier to mask a below-average short or putting game than it is to mask below-average tee or approach shots. I want to dive deeper into that.
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,884 ✭✭

    Lime Shark wrote:

    Bye wrote:


    I truly hate lines on golf balls and people using them as an alignment aid.




    It only takes two dots on a ball to make a line you can use for alignment, which would be impossible to outlaw. Actually, just one dot--put a dot a little over from the number and you have a line.



    No reason trying to outlaw something you can't outlaw.




    And why would anybody care about alignment aids on a golf ball?




    I don't care what marks someone wants to put on their ball. I only care about having to stand there watching them fiddle with it like they're about to perform brain surgery. Don't outlaw the marks, outlaw fiddling with them before EVERY STINKIN' PUTT!
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • bscinstnctbscinstnct Members Posts: 26,329 ✭✭
    edited Dec 13, 2017 #308




    Nobody would kill for being 191st in driving accuracy.




    191st in driving accuracy

    +

    2nd in distance (316 yds)

    =

    4rth in SG off the tee.



    6 wins and 2 majors. That's practically a HOF career for most. And the foundation is superior distance off the tee.



    OWGR 2005



    1) VJ

    2) TW

    3) Ernie

    4) Goosen

    5) Phil



    Driving distance 2005



    VJ 301 yds

    TW 316 yds

    Ernie 302 yds

    Goosen 295 yds

    Phil 300 yds



    Driving accuracy leaders 2005



    Jeff Hart

    Fred Funk

    Omar Uresti

    Olin Browne

    Gavin Coles
  • ByeBye Members Posts: 1,309 ✭✭


    Lime Shark wrote:

    Bye wrote:


    I truly hate lines on golf balls and people using them as an alignment aid.




    It only takes two dots on a ball to make a line you can use for alignment, which would be impossible to outlaw. Actually, just one dot--put a dot a little over from the number and you have a line.



    No reason trying to outlaw something you can't outlaw.




    And why would anybody care about alignment aids on a golf ball?




    I don't care what marks someone wants to put on their ball. I only care about having to stand there watching them fiddle with it like they're about to perform brain surgery. Don't outlaw the marks, outlaw fiddling with them before EVERY STINKIN' PUTT!




    Exactly! I don't care if it's marked like Duffy Waldorf ball. I just don't want to see some spend ages lining the damm thing up only to miss the putt.
    Taylormade 2017 M1 10.5 - Aldila Rogue Silver 70X - 44.5 inches
    Callaway Rogue 3 Wood - Aldila Rogue Silver 70X
    Titleist 816 H2 20 degrees - Aldila Rogue Black 85X
    Titleist 716CB 4-9 - X100
    Vokey 46.08, 50.08 - X100
    Vokey 56S, 60M - S300
    Scotty Cameron Studio Stainless Newport 2.5
    Titleist Pro V1
  • North TexasNorth Texas Members Posts: 4,103 ✭✭


    Lime Shark wrote:

    Bye wrote:


    I truly hate lines on golf balls and people using them as an alignment aid.




    It only takes two dots on a ball to make a line you can use for alignment, which would be impossible to outlaw. Actually, just one dot--put a dot a little over from the number and you have a line.



    No reason trying to outlaw something you can't outlaw.




    And why would anybody care about alignment aids on a golf ball?




    I don't care what marks someone wants to put on their ball. I only care about having to stand there watching them fiddle with it like they're about to perform brain surgery. Don't outlaw the marks, outlaw fiddling with them before EVERY STINKIN' PUTT!




    Yep. We play in a very active couples group and we have a guy that does this. Then to make matters worse, his wife imitates him and does the same thing on every **** putt.
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,884 ✭✭
    There's a group with about 25-30 regular and irregular players I play with on the weekend. Maybe half of us there on a typical Saturday. I'd say there were at one time nearly half a dozen of the mark-fiddlers. It's down to just a couple of them.



    One guy was so slow he was at one point invited to figure out a way to speed up or else find another group to play with. He quit playing with us for a while and now that he's back he at least compromises by only doing the mark-fiddling once per green. He doesn't re-mark before second putts or mark before tap-ins. Which surprisingly does seem to help even though he still insists on doing it for his first putts outside a couple feet.



    Eventually peer pressure (at least at private clubs with fairly stable play-together groups) does tend to make that practice seem less appealing. At least to some of them.
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • QuigleyDUQuigleyDU Members Posts: 6,517 ✭✭
    i feel that they need to let the grass grow a touch.
    Driver: Callaway Epic SubZero 3D 10.5*, Fujikura Ventus 7X
    Fairway: NIKE VAPOR 13*
    3-4 IRON: MIZZY MP18MMC FLIHI
    5-9 IRONS: MP5 DG AMT X100
    WEDGES; CLEVELAND RTX4: 48, 53, 58, 64
    PUTTER; Directed Force 2.1
    BALL; various, ask me that day.
  • UhitUhit Members Posts: 861
    rawdog wrote:



    Why use earnings per event? That number can be skewed since event payouts vary tremendously. Scoring average might be a better measure. Agree scoring is a better measure. But you guys were referencing money lists earlier, so I used money. I didn't think a guy who played 15 events and a guy who played 20 events could be fairly compared without controlling for how many events they played.



    Another good analysis is to graph scoring vs all of the the "strokes gained" stats to see which one correlates best. Ask and you shall receive. More commentary below.




    I re-did the Top 30 to show earnings per event. The Top 12 are all above-average in distance. 80% of the top 30 are above-average in distance. This is further highlighted in my scatter plot, where I highlight the Top 30. A lot of guys to the right of the average. If you're earning big money, you're longer than average.




    I agree with your numbers, but being above average isn't a very high bar. Spieth is above average and everybody calls him a short hitter (on this board) and even talk about how he must increase his distance to remain competitive.



    I'm on this board and I don't think he needs to do anything differently off the tee. He already has an advantage off the tee with his distance and accuracy.




    Then I would take another look at the Titleist charts. How they can say courses haven't changed length over the years or major-winning scores haven't gone down is beyond me. There are clear (likely statistically-significant) trends there. Scores trend down, lengths trend up.




    But scores have been flat for a decade. Not at the majors, which is what Titleist used in their report. I even posted their exact slides. Agree PGA scores have been flat, but that's because they play longer courses. I also posted this data.


    Then let's look at courses on the PGA Tour. They've gotten longer over the years, no doubt. The last chart shows average course grows roughly proportionate to tee shot distance.



    Again, I don't want to roll back the ball. I like the natural evolution of the game, and I think this issue is being blown out of proportion. I just don't like the way Titleist has presented it.



    I trust you'll look at this with an open mind. Thanks for the good discussion.




    I appreciate your graphs. This thread discussion has wandered all over the place to the point where I'm not sure what the core debate is.



    My position on the ball roll back issue is that it's not needed because distance and scoring has stabilized over the past ten years.




    Below are plots showing how each area of the game relates to scoring. Read it as you move from left to right, you move from being worse than the field to better than the field at that skill. Vertical axis is total strokes gained, a comparable measure to scoring average.



    All skills have positive correlations. Obviously, the better you are at a specific skill, the better you are overall. What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, not many have really separated themselves from the pack. Whereas, with tee shots and approaches, you start to see more variation in the values.



    It's tough to draw conclusions from this data. But if you look at the standard deviation of each category, you'll find:



    STD Dev Tee= .415

    STD Dev Approach = .367

    STD Dev Short = .211

    STD Dev Putting = .312



    There's almost double the variation of skill off the tee versus on the putting green. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on why this might be.

    What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, it's not too easy to sep




    I guess it is mostly due to distance.



    Because everybody can hit it short, and reaches some point, where he is precise enough.



    But not everybody is long AND precise enough (for the distances he plays)...

    ...that is where real talent shows.
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,015 ✭✭
    edited Dec 13, 2017 #314
    Note: At this point, I'm just building these charts for fun. I'm not trying to settle a debate or push an agenda. I genuinely enjoy doing this work.



    The best in the world seem to be getting it done using advantages off the tee and with their approaches.



    I've highlighted the top 5 in total strokes gained in 2017.



    Remember, left-to-right indicates the advantage over the field at that particular skill, and it looks (to me) that they are further to the right when it comes to tee shots and approaches than it does short game and putting (with Rickie's putting being an exception). Each chart is to the same scale.



    To me, I see this as there's simply more opportunity to separate from the field using tee and approach shots.



    Thoughts?
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,015 ✭✭
    Uhit wrote:

    rawdog wrote:






    Below are plots showing how each area of the game relates to scoring. Read it as you move from left to right, you move from being worse than the field to better than the field at that skill. Vertical axis is total strokes gained, a comparable measure to scoring average.



    All skills have positive correlations. Obviously, the better you are at a specific skill, the better you are overall. What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, not many have really separated themselves from the pack. Whereas, with tee shots and approaches, you start to see more variation in the values.



    It's tough to draw conclusions from this data. But if you look at the standard deviation of each category, you'll find:



    STD Dev Tee= .415

    STD Dev Approach = .367

    STD Dev Short = .211

    STD Dev Putting = .312



    There's almost double the variation of skill off the tee versus on the putting green. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on why this might be.

    What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, it's not too easy to sep




    I guess it is mostly due to distance.



    Because everybody can hit it short, and reaches some point, where he is precise enough.



    But not everybody is long AND precise enough (for the distances he plays)...

    ...that is where real talent shows.




    I like this post a lot. Diminishing returns to practicing skill work (ie, "precise enough"). So how does one break though? Brute force and strength/speed.
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,262 ✭✭


    Lime Shark wrote:

    Bye wrote:


    I truly hate lines on golf balls and people using them as an alignment aid.




    It only takes two dots on a ball to make a line you can use for alignment, which would be impossible to outlaw. Actually, just one dot--put a dot a little over from the number and you have a line.



    No reason trying to outlaw something you can't outlaw.




    And why would anybody care about alignment aids on a golf ball?




    I don't care what marks someone wants to put on their ball. I only care about having to stand there watching them fiddle with it like they're about to perform brain surgery. Don't outlaw the marks, outlaw fiddling with them before EVERY STINKIN' PUTT!




    OK, so it's a pace of play issue. But if they perform brain surgery and still keep pace, what's the problem?
  • QuigleyDUQuigleyDU Members Posts: 6,517 ✭✭
    rawdog wrote:


    Note: At this point, I'm just building these charts for fun. I'm not trying to settle a debate or push an agenda. I genuinely enjoy doing this work.



    The best in the world seem to be getting it done using advantages off the tee and with their approaches.



    I've highlighted the top 5 in total strokes gained in 2017.



    Remember, left-to-right indicates the advantage over the field at that particular skill, and it looks (to me) that they are further to the right when it comes to tee shots and approaches than it does short game and putting (with Rickie's putting being an exception). Each chart is to the same scale.



    To me, I see this as there's simply more opportunity to separate from the field using tee and approach shots.



    Thoughts?




    this is very interesting to me. For to longest time Fowler was considered a very average putter. he even changed his grip a few times. but according to this he is (at least with this statistic) one of the best.
    Driver: Callaway Epic SubZero 3D 10.5*, Fujikura Ventus 7X
    Fairway: NIKE VAPOR 13*
    3-4 IRON: MIZZY MP18MMC FLIHI
    5-9 IRONS: MP5 DG AMT X100
    WEDGES; CLEVELAND RTX4: 48, 53, 58, 64
    PUTTER; Directed Force 2.1
    BALL; various, ask me that day.
  • UhitUhit Members Posts: 861
    rawdog wrote:


    Note: At this point, I'm just building these charts for fun. I'm not trying to settle a debate or push an agenda. I genuinely enjoy doing this work.



    The best in the world seem to be getting it done using advantages off the tee and with their approaches.



    I've highlighted the top 5 in total strokes gained in 2017.



    Remember, left-to-right indicates the advantage over the field at that particular skill, and it looks (to me) that they are further to the right when it comes to tee shots and approaches than it does short game and putting (with Rickie's putting being an exception). Each chart is to the same scale.



    To me, I see this as there's simply more opportunity to separate from the field using tee and approach shots.



    Thoughts?




    I think, that it is difficult to find the perfect balance between distance and precision within the SG method, whereas this method may be the best we have to date.



    Precision becomes more meaningless, as soon as the long hitters start to hit it as short, as the short hitters...

    ...because they will probably all end up in the middle of the fairway +/- 6 yards at about the same distance.



    But as soon, as you risk to swing it hard to get more distance than your peers, you get the chance to be rewarded, if you stay precise enough...

    ...which is exactly the point, where precision and shot making starts to be really relevant.



    If you fail, and are only long, but not precise enough for the distance you played, you get punished - and the course layout and setup dictates how much.



    -



    Here we go again:



    The problem is not the distance, but the height of the punishment for not being precise enough.



    And the punishment is a property of the course design and setup.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,262 ✭✭
    rawdog wrote:


    Note: At this point, I'm just building these charts for fun. I'm not trying to settle a debate or push an agenda. I genuinely enjoy doing this work.



    The best in the world seem to be getting it done using advantages off the tee and with their approaches.



    I've highlighted the top 5 in total strokes gained in 2017.



    Remember, left-to-right indicates the advantage over the field at that particular skill, and it looks (to me) that they are further to the right when it comes to tee shots and approaches than it does short game and putting (with Rickie's putting being an exception). Each chart is to the same scale.



    To me, I see this as there's simply more opportunity to separate from the field using tee and approach shots.



    Thoughts?




    I love this stuff. As a former CIO at an insurance company, I worked with lots of actuaries and they thrive on statistics like these. BTW, you wouldn't happen to be an actuary?



    Anyway, it's interesting to see how the top players excel at all aspects of the game. You can't be a top 5 OWGR player and have a real weakness.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,262 ✭✭
    Uhit wrote:




    I think, that it is difficult to find the perfect balance between distance and precision within the SG method, whereas this method may be the best we have to date.



    Precision becomes more meaningless, as soon as the long hitters start to hit it as short, as the short hitters...

    ...because they will probably all end up in the middle of the fairway +/- 6 yards at about the same distance.



    But as soon, as you risk to swing it hard to get more distance than your peers, you get the chance to be rewarded, if you stay precise enough...

    ...which is exactly the point, where precision and shot making starts to be really relevant.



    If you fail, and are only long, but not precise enough for the distance you played, you get punished - and the course layout and setup dictates how much.



    -



    Here we go again:



    The problem is not the distance, but the height of the punishment for not being precise enough.



    And the punishment is a property of the course design and setup.





    Good point. And increasing the punishment for wild tee shots is quite easy to do, doesn't disrupt the game for amateurs, and costs almost nothing to implement.
  • UhitUhit Members Posts: 861
    rawdog wrote:

    Uhit wrote:

    rawdog wrote:


    Below are plots showing how each area of the game relates to scoring. Read it as you move from left to right, you move from being worse than the field to better than the field at that skill. Vertical axis is total strokes gained, a comparable measure to scoring average.



    All skills have positive correlations. Obviously, the better you are at a specific skill, the better you are overall. What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, not many have really separated themselves from the pack. Whereas, with tee shots and approaches, you start to see more variation in the values.



    It's tough to draw conclusions from this data. But if you look at the standard deviation of each category, you'll find:



    STD Dev Tee= .415

    STD Dev Approach = .367

    STD Dev Short = .211

    STD Dev Putting = .312



    There's almost double the variation of skill off the tee versus on the putting green. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on why this might be.

    What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, it's not too easy to sep




    I guess it is mostly due to distance.



    Because everybody can hit it short, and reaches some point, where he is precise enough.



    But not everybody is long AND precise enough (for the distances he plays)...

    ...that is where real talent shows.




    I like this post a lot. Diminishing returns to practicing skill work (ie, "precise enough"). So how does one break though? Brute force and strength/speed.




    ...guess why I practice my long game more, than my short game?



    Because my weakness is the precision of my tee shots during tournament play...



    ...and our course really punishes shots that misses the fairway.
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,015 ✭✭

    rawdog wrote:


    Note: At this point, I'm just building these charts for fun. I'm not trying to settle a debate or push an agenda. I genuinely enjoy doing this work.



    The best in the world seem to be getting it done using advantages off the tee and with their approaches.



    I've highlighted the top 5 in total strokes gained in 2017.



    Remember, left-to-right indicates the advantage over the field at that particular skill, and it looks (to me) that they are further to the right when it comes to tee shots and approaches than it does short game and putting (with Rickie's putting being an exception). Each chart is to the same scale.



    To me, I see this as there's simply more opportunity to separate from the field using tee and approach shots.



    Thoughts?




    I love this stuff. As a former CIO at an insurance company, I worked with lots of actuaries and they thrive on statistics like these. BTW, you wouldn't happen to be an actuary?



    Anyway, it's interesting to see how the top players excel at all aspects of the game. You can't be a top 5 OWGR player and have a real weakness.




    I am not an actuary, but my background is in economics and econometrics. I am a former investment banker and now I am a financial analyst for a regional restaurant group. I also do consulting on the side in areas like backlog management, customer lifetime value, marketing ROI and sales forecasting.



    PM me for my website. My firm is called Albatross Company.



    Gotta love golf!
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,262 ✭✭
    Uhit wrote:

    rawdog wrote:

    Uhit wrote:

    rawdog wrote:


    Below are plots showing how each area of the game relates to scoring. Read it as you move from left to right, you move from being worse than the field to better than the field at that skill. Vertical axis is total strokes gained, a comparable measure to scoring average.



    All skills have positive correlations. Obviously, the better you are at a specific skill, the better you are overall. What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, not many have really separated themselves from the pack. Whereas, with tee shots and approaches, you start to see more variation in the values.



    It's tough to draw conclusions from this data. But if you look at the standard deviation of each category, you'll find:



    STD Dev Tee= .415

    STD Dev Approach = .367

    STD Dev Short = .211

    STD Dev Putting = .312



    There's almost double the variation of skill off the tee versus on the putting green. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on why this might be.

    What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, it's not too easy to sep




    I guess it is mostly due to distance.



    Because everybody can hit it short, and reaches some point, where he is precise enough.



    But not everybody is long AND precise enough (for the distances he plays)...

    ...that is where real talent shows.




    I like this post a lot. Diminishing returns to practicing skill work (ie, "precise enough"). So how does one break though? Brute force and strength/speed.




    ...guess why I practice my long game more, than my short game?



    Because my weakness is the precision of my tee shots during tournament play...



    ...and our course really punishes shots that misses the fairway.




    Our golf group debates this quite often. It's an individual determination. You really need to analyze where you are losing strokes to determine what to work on. I know the most common advice is to work on your short game because it's easier to improve. But we shouldn't automatically decide that and in fact, I'm not sure it's easier to improve your short game than your long game.



    For example, if you miss a putt on a hole, that's one stroke lost. But a bad drive can cost you two strokes (lost ball, OB, etc). So if you are losing lots of strokes because of bad drives, you are better off working on your long game than short game. And vice versa.
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,015 ✭✭
    Here is a bonus chart for y'all.



    Distance vs. Total Strokes Gained.



    Top 5 highlighted by name, Top 30 highlighted in dark blue.



    My thoughts? It's easier to score well if you're long. Duh. Someone mentioned the distance "elite."



    There are 43 guys averaging over 300 yards. 36 of 43 have positive total strokes gained. That means 84% of players averaging 300 yards are above-average in scoring.
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • UhitUhit Members Posts: 861
    edited Dec 13, 2017 #325
    rawdog wrote:


    Here is a bonus chart for y'all.



    Distance vs. Total Strokes Gained.



    Top 5 highlighted by name, Top 30 highlighted in dark blue.



    My thoughts? It's easier to score well if you're long. Duh. Someone mentioned the distance "elite."



    There are 43 guys averaging over 300 yards. 36 of 43 have positive total strokes gained. That means 84% of players averaging 300 yards are above-average in scoring.




    Because if you can reach 320, you can also reach 300, or 280, but with increased precision.



    More length of the tee equals more possibilities to play a hole (club selection, dog leg position, hazards etc.).



    And I guess, that Jordan Spieth made the best out of his distance possibilities, by selecting a club and a swing speed,

    that allowed him to be precise enough, at the necessary length for a certain shot.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,262 ✭✭
    rawdog wrote:


    Here is a bonus chart for y'all.



    Distance vs. Total Strokes Gained.




    Very interesting indeed. The top five in SG total are spread all across the top tier and pretty evenly spaced horizontally.



    My observations;



    1. You have to be above average in distance to be top tier (although it would be interesting to see Luke Donald's stats when he was #1 and one of the shortest drivers on tour).



    2. If you are above average in distance, there is little to be gained by increasing your distance. If you look only at the right half of your graph, the Least Squares Regression Line would be flat or almost flat indicating that at some point more distance doesn't improve your game.



    4. If your distance is less than average, you have a lot to gain by increasing your distance. A Least Squares Regression Line would certainly be tilted up if applied only to the left half of the graph.
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,015 ✭✭
    edited Dec 13, 2017 #327

    Uhit wrote:

    rawdog wrote:

    Uhit wrote:

    rawdog wrote:


    Below are plots showing how each area of the game relates to scoring. Read it as you move from left to right, you move from being worse than the field to better than the field at that skill. Vertical axis is total strokes gained, a comparable measure to scoring average.



    All skills have positive correlations. Obviously, the better you are at a specific skill, the better you are overall. What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, not many have really separated themselves from the pack. Whereas, with tee shots and approaches, you start to see more variation in the values.



    It's tough to draw conclusions from this data. But if you look at the standard deviation of each category, you'll find:



    STD Dev Tee= .415

    STD Dev Approach = .367

    STD Dev Short = .211

    STD Dev Putting = .312



    There's almost double the variation of skill off the tee versus on the putting green. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on why this might be.

    What I see is that short game and putting are more tightly grouped than approach shots or tee shots. Meaning, it's not too easy to sep




    I guess it is mostly due to distance.



    Because everybody can hit it short, and reaches some point, where he is precise enough.



    But not everybody is long AND precise enough (for the distances he plays)...

    ...that is where real talent shows.




    I like this post a lot. Diminishing returns to practicing skill work (ie, "precise enough"). So how does one break though? Brute force and strength/speed.




    ...guess why I practice my long game more, than my short game?



    Because my weakness is the precision of my tee shots during tournament play...



    ...and our course really punishes shots that misses the fairway.




    Our golf group debates this quite often. It's an individual determination. You really need to analyze where you are losing strokes to determine what to work on. I know the most common advice is to work on your short game because it's easier to improve. But we shouldn't automatically decide that and in fact, I'm not sure it's easier to improve your short game than your long game.



    For example, if you miss a putt on a hole, that's one stroke lost. But a bad drive can cost you two strokes (lost ball, OB, etc). So if you are losing lots of strokes because of bad drives, you are better off working on your long game than short game. And vice versa.




    That's why I like the concept of strokes gained and expected strokes. For example, if you track your stats (or use other stats like PGA Tour or Broadie's), you can look at it like this:



    I missed a 10 footer and tapped in. That's two strokes. From that distance, I was expected to take 1.6 strokes (using collected data), but I made 2. So I really only lost .4 strokes.



    Or driving. Data can tell us, ok, I'm 440 yards out on the tee box of a Par 4. Average scoring from that distance is 4.1 strokes. I put one in the rough and am 180 out. I'm expected to take 3.3 strokes from there. I took a full stroke, but made myself only .8 strokes better off. So I lost .2 strokes because of that tee shot.



    Aggregate enough data and you can see where you're gaining and losing.



    I think a lot of people think their putter is costing them, but they have the expectation that if they miss, they've "lost a stroke." You haven't, because you can't expect to make them all.
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • bscinstnctbscinstnct Members Posts: 26,329 ✭✭
    edited Dec 13, 2017 #328
    rawdog wrote:


    Here is a bonus chart for y'all.



    Distance vs. Total Strokes Gained.



    Top 5 highlighted by name, Top 30 highlighted in dark blue.



    My thoughts? It's easier to score well if you're long. Duh. Someone mentioned the distance "elite."



    There are 43 guys averaging over 300 yards. 36 of 43 have positive total strokes gained. That means 84% of players averaging 300 yards are above-average in scoring.




    This distance effect compounds as well.



    Consider that every 10 yards of distance off the tee realizes less potential strokes to hole out. Every 20 yards might mean .10-.15 less shots to hole out.



    Now, rack that up over the course of 4 rounds and a big hitter is starting with a 2,3 even 4 stroke advantage automatically.



    Then add that guys who hit it farther don't just hit it farther off the tee. They have more swing speed and would often be more effective at a 180 yard approach than a shorter hitter since they are hitting a more lofted club. Only its the shorter hitter hitting from 180 and the longer hitter hitting from 150-160. It's almost unfair.



    Also, on long par 4s, it's only the longer player who get to dial short irons and wedges.



    Now, alllllll the way back to the titleist piece. I agree that there are a number of factors that contribute to big hitters have the advantage, it's not just the ball.
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,015 ✭✭
    Uhit wrote:

    rawdog wrote:


    Here is a bonus chart for y'all.



    Distance vs. Total Strokes Gained.



    Top 5 highlighted by name, Top 30 highlighted in dark blue.



    My thoughts? It's easier to score well if you're long. Duh. Someone mentioned the distance "elite."



    There are 43 guys averaging over 300 yards. 36 of 43 have positive total strokes gained. That means 84% of players averaging 300 yards are above-average in scoring.




    Because if you can reach 320, you can also reach 300, or 280, but with increased precision.



    More length of the tee equals more possibilities to play a hole (club selection, dog leg position, hazards etc.).



    And I guess, that Jordan Spieth made the best out of his distance possibilities, by selecting a club and a swing speed,

    that allowed him to be precise enough, at the necessary length for a certain shot.




    That's why I get upset with the "irons are for precision" people. Guess what, if you hit the ball further, you can club down to a more precise club.
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,015 ✭✭
    edited Dec 13, 2017 #330

    rawdog wrote:


    Here is a bonus chart for y'all.



    Distance vs. Total Strokes Gained.




    Very interesting indeed. The top five in SG total are spread all across the top tier and pretty evenly spaced horizontally.



    My observations;



    1. You have to be above average in distance to be top tier (although it would be interesting to see Luke Donald's stats when he was #1 and one of the shortest drivers on tour).



    2. If you are above average in distance, there is little to be gained by increasing your distance. If you look only at the right half of your graph, the Least Squares Regression Line would be flat or almost flat indicating that at some point more distance doesn't improve your game.



    4. If your distance is less than average, you have a lot to gain by increasing your distance. A Least Squares Regression Line would certainly be tilted up if applied only to the left half of the graph.




    Luke Donald, you say? Look what peaked for him right around the time his OWGR peaked. He had an outlier year in both approaches and tee shots strokes gained. He was a little longer, and considerably more accurate that previous years. First time he ever GAINED strokes off the tee.



    His short game and putting has always been consistently good, but look what happened when his driver woke up for a couple years. It put him over the top.



    As his accuracy falls over the years, his distance just can't keep him competitive... a fall to 81 in OWGR. To be competitive on tour, Luke needs to be crazy accurate off the tee.
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • UhitUhit Members Posts: 861
    bscinstnct wrote:

    rawdog wrote:


    Here is a bonus chart for y'all.



    Distance vs. Total Strokes Gained.



    Top 5 highlighted by name, Top 30 highlighted in dark blue.



    My thoughts? It's easier to score well if you're long. Duh. Someone mentioned the distance "elite."



    There are 43 guys averaging over 300 yards. 36 of 43 have positive total strokes gained. That means 84% of players averaging 300 yards are above-average in scoring.




    This distance effect compounds as well.



    Consider that every 10 yards of distance off the tee realizes less potential strokes to hole out. Every 20 yards might mean .10-.15 less shots to hole out.



    Now, rack that up over the course of 4 rounds and a big hitter is starting with a 2,3 even 4 stroke advantage automatically.



    Then add that guys who hit it farther don't just hit it farther off the tee. They have more swing speed and would often be more effective at a 180 yard approach than a shorter hitter since they are hitting a more lofted club. Only its the shorter hitter hitting from 180 and the longer hitter hitting from 150-160. It's almost unfair.



    Also, on long par 4s, it's only the longer player who get to dial short irons and wedges.



    Now, alllllll the way back to the titleist piece. I agree that there are a number of factors that contribute to big hitters have the advantage, it's not just the ball.




    What about marathon runners with longer legs than average?



    Let them run 4 miles more, because of that?



    Would this be fair?



    Or "one size fits all" shoes for marathon runners,

    because some might have an advantage with a certain kind of shoes?



    -



    It is in the nature of sports, that some have an advantage over others.

    Be it the size, weight, flexibility, speed, etc.



    Don´t play, or watch, competitions, if you think, that everything is unfair, that is not performed by (the same) robots.



    -



    I enjoy watching people who hit it far and / or very precise, and don´t spend a second in thinking,



    that it may be easier for them to do (than it is for > put in name here <) it, because of this, or because of that.
Sign In or Register to comment.