Best Driver of 2019 | Full Article _HERE_ | Discussion Thread _HERE_

4 Years Playing (frustration, observations, and what I've learned)

12346
7

Comments

  • North ButteNorth Butte  11741Members Posts: 11,741
    Joined:  #152

    My long-term SG: Putting average (from a couple hundred rounds I bothered to keep stats) is exactly 4.0 strokes worse than Tour average or 2.9 strokes worse than average for a Scratch player. That means I putt like a 14 handicapper (my overall handicap tends to be around 17-18) so I'm not really "costing" myself much with putting relative to the rest of my game. But I'm not saving much either.

    On the other hand, my average score in those rounds is 87 and that tells me if I could putt like an average Tour player that would be somewhere in the 83 range. I'd certainly love to be shooting 83 instead of 87 but can't imagine what it would take for a middle-aged hack to practice his putting into anything remotely resembling Tour form. And if I did, I'm still shooting "mid-80's" right?

    There's only one interesting thing I've found by diving deeper into my own putting stats. What I think of as my "true" putting ability is just about one full stroke better than my average stats. About 2 strokes worse than Scratch or 3 strokes worse than Tour. When I look at shorter periods of maybe 3 months at a time, there is almost never a period when I putt better than 3.0 strokes worse than Tour. That is as good as I can maintain for multiple rounds.

    That extra stroke (my average of 4.0 versus "true ability" of 3.0-ish) comes from occasional periods of several weeks when I miss a boatload of short putts. I will have as many as eight or ten rounds in a row where I putt exactly like normal on mid-length (7-21 feet) and long (22+ feet) but waste an extra half dozen strokes per round from 6 feet and in. And that's almost missed 2-3 foot second putts.

    So that's what I kind of self-monitor when I suspect my putting is off. I don't go running out to do distance-control drills or try to groove my stroke for 8-footers. Those are seldom an issue. Instead I get out the putting mirror, chalk line, ruler on the kitchen floor and anything else I can use to get back to being able to hit a dead-straight 3-foot putt into the center of the hole. Amazing as it seems, I can actually miss enough 2, 3, 4 foot putts to literally add 5+ strokes to my scores. No need to let something like that fester for long!

    Posted:
    “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.” 
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • North ButteNorth Butte  11741Members Posts: 11,741
    Joined:  #153

    Nard_S,

    Number of putts tells you absolutely nothing about your putting, beyond the fact that if it's more than 40 you may have something going on. Number of putts is at least as much about approach shots and short game as it is about putting.

    Counting Fairways and Greens probably tells you more than counting putts but not by a whole lot. What matters off the tee is putting yourself in a position to reach the green. Not whether you are a yard inside the left edge of the fairway (Fairway Hit!) versus a foot into the left rough (Fairway Missed). You'd be better off scoring each tee shot as a trichotomy of Good, Bad or Awful.

    A "good" tee shot is either in the fairway or in a playable lie in the rough and is also of normal or nearly normal proximity to the hole (meaning you didn't top it or pop it up or hit a tree and come up way short of your normal drive). A "bad" tee shot is either in a bad lie in the rough or its in the fairway but well short of normal or its in a fairway bunker or slightly obstructed by trees. Or even it's just at a horrible angle to approach the hole on a dogleg or someting. And "awful" tee shot costs you a penalty stroke or means punching out of trouble sideways or backward, not being able to advance the ball on the second shot.

    Similar GIR should be scored based on the next shot you can play. If you are literally on the green but 70 feet from the hole putting across a ridge, through a swale and dealing with a double or triple break that should not count as a GIR. And if you a foot off the green in the fringe and just 20 feet straight uphill to the hole that should count as a GIR.

    Only keeps stats that reflect both the effect of each shot on your position for the next shot AND that reflect only the thing they purport to measure. If you count fringes as missed fairways, it doesn't reflect the ease of the next shot. Or if you count "3 putts" from 50 feet the same as "3 putts" from 10 feet you aren't really reflecting putting so much as proximity to the hole after your approach or chip.

    Posted:
    “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.” 
  • Nard_SNard_S  3576Members Posts: 3,576
    Joined:  #154

    I strive for 10 /10/30. Ten FIR & GIR's and 30 putts. I keep those in context. I've had 27 putt rounds but it was due to an up & down percentage north of 50% and dialed in putting.
    I practice being solid 100' feet in from flag and 225 yards out of tee box. I have that, the approach shot is least stressful shot on any hole. If one or both are off, I'm playing defensive where targets are more modest, bigger, safer and long sided. So I rarely make doubles/triples or have blow up stretches of play anymore. I drill up & down on the practice green and strive for 60% to 80% there. On the course, 50% becomes doable. The 225-240 tee shot is most crucial to have. On big par 5's, yeah I go for more but on the range, dispersion of more modest distance is heavily practiced now. Net is my GIR was 7-8 average, this year 9-10. Lie and angle of approach to green is crucial to quality GIR pokes.

    Posted:
  • smashdnsmashdn Let's cut them trees down.  1555Members Posts: 1,555
    Joined:  edited Sep 13, 2019 6:36pm #155

    @bladehunter said:

    Yep. I get all that. I do.

    I guess I just have a bee in my bonnet from the confrontations of past weeks where I’ve been raked hard for disagreeing with some assertions that players have won solely from ball striking ( Rory was the case in point ). ** **I could not get the Broadie faithful to see that he also had a good to great putting week ,**** but the stat lies a bit when you are hitting it that close. By lies I mean that it has a guy like that mid pack or worse with putter , when in reality he made more consequential putts than anyone on the course. My point is simple. You can lead in strokes gained approach ,and proximity and make 99% of those putts and likely not be top 10 in strokes gained putting for the week. Does that mean you need to work on putting ?

    If they cannot accept that then they are missing a large chunk of Broadie's work and explanations given in his book. For lack of a better way to describe it I call it micro and macro data. Macro data is season long type stuff - historical and trend type things. Micro data is maybe only a round or a tournament.

    Broadie says that over the long haul of a season or a career, that aspects of the game other than putting have a greater correlation to winning. But on a single tournament basis the winner is most likely the person who gets hot with the putter. (This is covered in chapter 2.) You can take the data sets and run a correlation test upon them and mathematically know which has the greater impact and to what degree.

    Strokes gained putting takes into account distance from the hole. It is a normalized stat with a "stroke" as the base. You can measure what is more important or what is a "better" shot whether the shot is a putt, a chip or a drive that way. Stroke gained putting outcome would not be changed either way based upon difference if performance on the green was the same.

    If all you had all week were 3' putts and you made them all, and all I had were 8' putts and I only made half of them (and made all the misses in one stroke) we would have the same SG-Putting number (or darn close) because neither of us did better or worse than was expected from the distances we started at.

    @davep043 said:

    @bladehunter said:
    My point is simple. You can lead in strokes gained approach ,and proximity and make 99% of those putts and likely not be top 10 in strokes gained putting for the week. Does that mean you need to work on putting ?

    Not at all. But if you do that for an entire season, lead in SG-approach and proximity and make most of the putts you have, your season will eclipse Tiger's best. ****From a decision-making viewpoint, a single tournament simply doesn't provide enough data. ** **

    That's huge right there.

    Last thing. Imagine if you had glasses of different sizes and capacities to represent the different aspects of the game you could work on. You had a glass for driver, long irons, approaches, chips and pitches (short game) and putting. The capacity of the glass represents it's impact on your overall game. The width of the glass represents the ease at which you can improve. The level of water you currently have in the glass is where you currently are in relation to how good you can possibly get at that skill. You can't overfill the glass. Let's assume that a full glass means you are the best on the PGA Tour at that particular skill. Your goal is to raise the water level in all the glasses to as full as you possibly can. But the two catches are you only have a finite amount of water with which to fill your glasses at a time and each one of your glasses has a crack that is leaking water (you get rusty at stuff).

    You have to decide how you can best get your glasses full based upon how hard they are to fill and realistically how full can each glass get.

    Posted:
  • andrueandrue  1349Members Posts: 1,349
    Joined:  #156

    @North Butte said:
    And yes, people on GolfWRX shares lots of tips and info. Which is worth exactly what it costs. I'm a total hack and am happy to talk about my own experiences. But I would not recommend someone go do what I do, I'm just prattling on about how things work for myself.

    Exactly. It's a discussion board. Until/unless the board operators dictate that no-one above a certain hcp is allowed to offer an opinion it is fair for us to do so. I will agree that we shouldn't start threads telling other players how to fix their problems. But I see nothing wrong in me explaining in a post what I have found to be helpful. As long as I don't try and pass myself of as anything I'm not or try and tell other people what to do it's fine.

    This particular thread might be a step too far. It started off as a rant and implied it was going to be a comment about personal experience. But then it became a list of 'dos' and 'don'ts' I don't think anyone at any level should be doing that. State a personal opinion, suggest to someone that they are wrong but flat out telling other people how to play golf is not on. Only coaches talking to their students should do that.

    But..it's turned into an interesting thread. What we're doing here isn't playing golf. We're chatting. Sure there's good advice to be had at GolfWRX but really it's all about the discussion. So I actually take the view that it's all good. The thread has triggered a lengthy and interesting discussion so well done to the OP for that.

    Posted:
    Callaway Rogue Driver.
    Callaway Big Bertha OS Hybrids (3/4/5)
    Callaway Big Bertha OS Irons (6/7/8/9/PW/AW/SW)
    Callaway 60* Sureout wedge
    Callaway 64* Sureout wedge
    Ghost Spider Si 72 Putter
    Callaway Super Soft Yellow (White in winter).
  • Exactice808Exactice808 Just want to hit ball far and go find it...  4724Members Posts: 4,724
    Joined:  edited Sep 13, 2019 8:22pm #157

    @andrue said:

    @North Butte said:
    And yes, people on GolfWRX shares lots of tips and info. Which is worth exactly what it costs. I'm a total hack and am happy to talk about my own experiences. But I would not recommend someone go do what I do, I'm just prattling on about how things work for myself.

    Exactly. It's a discussion board. Until/unless the board operators dictate that no-one above a certain hcp is allowed to offer an opinion it is fair for us to do so. I will agree that we shouldn't start threads telling other players how to fix their problems. But I see nothing wrong in me explaining in a post what I have found to be helpful. As long as I don't try and pass myself of as anything I'm not or try and tell other people what to do it's fine.

    This particular thread might be a step too far. It started off as a rant and implied it was going to be a comment about personal experience. But then it became a list of 'dos' and 'don'ts' I don't think anyone at any level should be doing that. State a personal opinion, suggest to someone that they are wrong but flat out telling other people how to play golf is not on. Only coaches talking to their students should do that.

    But..it's turned into an interesting thread. What we're doing here isn't playing golf. We're chatting. Sure there's good advice to be had at GolfWRX but really it's all about the discussion. So I actually take the view that it's all good. The thread has triggered a lengthy and interesting discussion so well done to the OP for that.

    This is where I stand........ You know the famous saying, the stupid question is the one not asked..... Lets face it the OP while misguided has actually have a pretty successful thread of do's and dont's , more so now a deep discussion of metric to Strokes Gain.

    But as I tried to imply that discrediting a person's view strictly on their handicap seems over the top.

    WITH THAT actually now that we mention it..... there is difference of discussion and coaching I dont THINK if ANY.... are actually coaching GolfWRX period.... Monte, Iteach etc, all make a living, YET they share their thoughts and experience. BUT when a student comes to them they are coaching.

    Many of us are NOT coaching either but taking their knowledge they have collected over time and then regurgitating it. NOT coaching. I am a 80's player, I hardly consider my comments coaching, rather, experiences that I have researched. Re-sharing that research, rather than telling someone HOW to play or hit a shot. Coaching to that extent would be to develop a program to that specific player. THE OP was likely misguided in their attempt to share their "Frustration" as mention in the thread title.

    I have graciously learned SO MUCH on GolfWRX for better or for worse from all Handicap levels when I first started playing serious, shooting 100's to shooting my lowest 74 to averaging 85ish...... DO I discredit anyone's advice just because they shoot worse then me or have a higher handicap? LOL nah I will like ignore it if its irrelevant to me.... but to say that they are not qualified to give advice....... why not just ignore it and move on than say they are not qualified LOL...

    Posted:
    Titleist 915D3 
    TM M2v1 - 
    TM 18* M2 
    TM TP MC 4 & 5 PX 6.0 Rifles
    Cobra AMP Cell Pro 6-PW PX 6.0 Rifles
    Titleist SM5 Vokey50*/8*, 54*/10* & 58*/8* X100's
    Scotty Newport 2 33"
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • mhudson111mhudson111  49Members Posts: 49
    Joined:  #158

    @bladehunter said:

    @North Butte said:
    Strokes Gained correctly accounts for putting from close range, long range and in between. As long as the distances are accurate (and on Tour with Shotlink they are very accurate) and as long as you putt everything out (again, we can count on that during Tour events) then you can not trick or fool Strokes Gained by simply hitting the ball closer than your competitors. The stat does not work that way, no matter how many times you restate it in different words.

    I'm not trying to "rake" you. Just trying to explain that you (apparently) fundamentally misunderstand what Strokes Gained is measuring. Either that or you understand it and are arguing the opposite for some other reason I can't fathom.

    If Rory hits a bunch of approach shots to five feet, his Strokes Gained: Putting will reflect how many of those he made as compared to how many a Tour player on average would make. If another player hits a bunch of approach shots to thirty feet, SG: Putting reflects how many more or less he made than a Tour player would on average.

    There's simply no mechanism for the stat to mistake good ball striking for good putting. Or vice versa.

    Look. We are saying the same thing. To make sure of that answer this . Player 1 makes 100 .% putts and they range from 2 ft to 8 ft. Total of 29. Player 2 makes 100 % of his putts and they range from 10 ft to 32 ft. Total of 29. Rough guess is that player 1. Stat for the day will show - 1.5 strokes gained and player 2. Will show -4.5 strokes gained ( or more ) for the day. Do you agree there ?

    Who putted best ? Stats say player 2. Reality says they are equal. Who needs to work on putting ? Neither. Or both. It’s inconclusive. Without a sample of the opposite Lengths from both we can’t say. And not even then.

    Now give player 1 the lead by 1 over player 2 and the tv talking heads and stats guys here will tell you that player 1 won by “ superior ball striking “. And will discount his putting entirely.

    I’m just tired of hearing “ strokes gained “ and being expected to take its interpretations as gospel. It’s no more conclusive in a lot of instances then GIR or number of putts a round. The truth is every day is different and you cannot accurately predict what a player will or won’t struggle with 2 days form bow. Much less 2 months.

    Blade,
    You said
    “Who putted best ? Stats say player 2. Reality says they are equal”.
    How can you think someone who made 29 putts averaging 20 ft. without missing isn’t a better putter than someone who made 29 putts from 5 ft. without missing. Player 2 should be working on hitting his ball closer if he can go 29 for 29 from 10-32’. His SG putting would be so good, any other phase of the game would look avg. compared to that.

    Posted:
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day... south carolina 28257Members Posts: 28,257
    Joined:  #159

    @mhudson111 said:

    @bladehunter said:

    @North Butte said:
    Strokes Gained correctly accounts for putting from close range, long range and in between. As long as the distances are accurate (and on Tour with Shotlink they are very accurate) and as long as you putt everything out (again, we can count on that during Tour events) then you can not trick or fool Strokes Gained by simply hitting the ball closer than your competitors. The stat does not work that way, no matter how many times you restate it in different words.

    I'm not trying to "rake" you. Just trying to explain that you (apparently) fundamentally misunderstand what Strokes Gained is measuring. Either that or you understand it and are arguing the opposite for some other reason I can't fathom.

    If Rory hits a bunch of approach shots to five feet, his Strokes Gained: Putting will reflect how many of those he made as compared to how many a Tour player on average would make. If another player hits a bunch of approach shots to thirty feet, SG: Putting reflects how many more or less he made than a Tour player would on average.

    There's simply no mechanism for the stat to mistake good ball striking for good putting. Or vice versa.

    Look. We are saying the same thing. To make sure of that answer this . Player 1 makes 100 .% putts and they range from 2 ft to 8 ft. Total of 29. Player 2 makes 100 % of his putts and they range from 10 ft to 32 ft. Total of 29. Rough guess is that player 1. Stat for the day will show - 1.5 strokes gained and player 2. Will show -4.5 strokes gained ( or more ) for the day. Do you agree there ?

    Who putted best ? Stats say player 2. Reality says they are equal. Who needs to work on putting ? Neither. Or both. It’s inconclusive. Without a sample of the opposite Lengths from both we can’t say. And not even then.

    Now give player 1 the lead by 1 over player 2 and the tv talking heads and stats guys here will tell you that player 1 won by “ superior ball striking “. And will discount his putting entirely.

    I’m just tired of hearing “ strokes gained “ and being expected to take its interpretations as gospel. It’s no more conclusive in a lot of instances then GIR or number of putts a round. The truth is every day is different and you cannot accurately predict what a player will or won’t struggle with 2 days form bow. Much less 2 months.

    Blade,
    You said
    “Who putted best ? Stats say player 2. Reality says they are equal”.
    How can you think someone who made 29 putts averaging 20 ft. without missing isn’t a better putter than someone who made 29 putts from 5 ft. without missing. Player 2 should be working on hitting his ball closer if he can go 29 for 29 from 10-32’. His SG putting would be so good, any other phase of the game would look avg. compared to that.

    It just points to him making longer putts. Not being a better putter. For all we know he misses anything inside 10 ft. And player 1 didn’t have any bombs to try. It’s only a guess at how well the guy who’s hitting it close will putt . Not to mention break and speed aren’t calculated in. Just flat distance .

    I’m simply saying I don’t believe in the stat enough to call upon it anytime anything is debated.

    Posted:
    Ping G410  11.2* Tensei pro OrangeV2 proto 70TX 
    Ping G410 15.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Ping G410 21* ADDI 105x 
    Ping Blueprint  4-PW   Modus 130X 
    Ping Glide Forged  50  54 60 s400
    Cameron ICC prototype CT Fastback Armlock.  42 inch with jumbo max 17 inch  grip.   


  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day... south carolina 28257Members Posts: 28,257
    Joined:  #160

    @smashdn said:

    @bladehunter said:

    Yep. I get all that. I do.

    I guess I just have a bee in my bonnet from the confrontations of past weeks where I’ve been raked hard for disagreeing with some assertions that players have won solely from ball striking ( Rory was the case in point ). ** **I could not get the Broadie faithful to see that he also had a good to great putting week ,**** but the stat lies a bit when you are hitting it that close. By lies I mean that it has a guy like that mid pack or worse with putter , when in reality he made more consequential putts than anyone on the course. My point is simple. You can lead in strokes gained approach ,and proximity and make 99% of those putts and likely not be top 10 in strokes gained putting for the week. Does that mean you need to work on putting ?

    If they cannot accept that then they are missing a large chunk of Broadie's work and explanations given in his book. For lack of a better way to describe it I call it micro and macro data. Macro data is season long type stuff - historical and trend type things. Micro data is maybe only a round or a tournament.

    Broadie says that over the long haul of a season or a career, that aspects of the game other than putting have a greater correlation to winning. But on a single tournament basis the winner is most likely the person who gets hot with the putter. (This is covered in chapter 2.) You can take the data sets and run a correlation test upon them and mathematically know which has the greater impact and to what degree.

    Strokes gained putting takes into account distance from the hole. It is a normalized stat with a "stroke" as the base. You can measure what is more important or what is a "better" shot whether the shot is a putt, a chip or a drive that way. Stroke gained putting outcome would not be changed either way based upon difference if performance on the green was the same.

    If all you had all week were 3' putts and you made them all, and all I had were 8' putts and I only made half of them (and made all the misses in one stroke) we would have the same SG-Putting number (or darn close) because neither of us did better or worse than was expected from the distances we started at.

    @davep043 said:

    @bladehunter said:
    My point is simple. You can lead in strokes gained approach ,and proximity and make 99% of those putts and likely not be top 10 in strokes gained putting for the week. Does that mean you need to work on putting ?

    Not at all. But if you do that for an entire season, lead in SG-approach and proximity and make most of the putts you have, your season will eclipse Tiger's best. ****From a decision-making viewpoint, a single tournament simply doesn't provide enough data. ** **

    That's huge right there.

    Last thing. Imagine if you had glasses of different sizes and capacities to represent the different aspects of the game you could work on. You had a glass for driver, long irons, approaches, chips and pitches (short game) and putting. The capacity of the glass represents it's impact on your overall game. The width of the glass represents the ease at which you can improve. The level of water you currently have in the glass is where you currently are in relation to how good you can possibly get at that skill. You can't overfill the glass. Let's assume that a full glass means you are the best on the PGA Tour at that particular skill. Your goal is to raise the water level in all the glasses to as full as you possibly can. But the two catches are you only have a finite amount of water with which to fill your glasses at a time and each one of your glasses has a crack that is leaking water (you get rusty at stuff).

    You have to decide how you can best get your glasses full based upon how hard they are to fill and realistically how full can each glass get.

    Yep. I understand that. That’s exactly what I said just in reverse. You have the 8 foot guy missing half to have same stat as the 3 ft guy. Now if the 8 ft guy makes all he’s considered the best putter of the week. But. How do we know that. The 3 ft guy didn’t have the same putts as the 8 ft guy.

    I get the stat. It’s better than nothing. But. I just do not buy it as an exact thing like many do. You can compare all 8 footers on tour for the year and guess at what the make % should be. But .... you do not account for break , speed or situational pressure. So is it 50.% accurate ? Who knows. We a know that all 8 footers aren’t created equally.

    But yes. For a looooong term look I get it. For fun. But . I don’t get the usefulness of it . Soo many variable change with most putters over that long period that it has to be a game of pin the tail on the donkey. No ?

    Posted:
    Ping G410  11.2* Tensei pro OrangeV2 proto 70TX 
    Ping G410 15.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Ping G410 21* ADDI 105x 
    Ping Blueprint  4-PW   Modus 130X 
    Ping Glide Forged  50  54 60 s400
    Cameron ICC prototype CT Fastback Armlock.  42 inch with jumbo max 17 inch  grip.   


  • North ButteNorth Butte  11741Members Posts: 11,741
    Joined:  #161

    @bladehunter said:

    @mhudson111 said:

    @bladehunter said:

    @North Butte said:
    Strokes Gained correctly accounts for putting from close range, long range and in between. As long as the distances are accurate (and on Tour with Shotlink they are very accurate) and as long as you putt everything out (again, we can count on that during Tour events) then you can not trick or fool Strokes Gained by simply hitting the ball closer than your competitors. The stat does not work that way, no matter how many times you restate it in different words.

    I'm not trying to "rake" you. Just trying to explain that you (apparently) fundamentally misunderstand what Strokes Gained is measuring. Either that or you understand it and are arguing the opposite for some other reason I can't fathom.

    If Rory hits a bunch of approach shots to five feet, his Strokes Gained: Putting will reflect how many of those he made as compared to how many a Tour player on average would make. If another player hits a bunch of approach shots to thirty feet, SG: Putting reflects how many more or less he made than a Tour player would on average.

    There's simply no mechanism for the stat to mistake good ball striking for good putting. Or vice versa.

    Look. We are saying the same thing. To make sure of that answer this . Player 1 makes 100 .% putts and they range from 2 ft to 8 ft. Total of 29. Player 2 makes 100 % of his putts and they range from 10 ft to 32 ft. Total of 29. Rough guess is that player 1. Stat for the day will show - 1.5 strokes gained and player 2. Will show -4.5 strokes gained ( or more ) for the day. Do you agree there ?

    Who putted best ? Stats say player 2. Reality says they are equal. Who needs to work on putting ? Neither. Or both. It’s inconclusive. Without a sample of the opposite Lengths from both we can’t say. And not even then.

    Now give player 1 the lead by 1 over player 2 and the tv talking heads and stats guys here will tell you that player 1 won by “ superior ball striking “. And will discount his putting entirely.

    I’m just tired of hearing “ strokes gained “ and being expected to take its interpretations as gospel. It’s no more conclusive in a lot of instances then GIR or number of putts a round. The truth is every day is different and you cannot accurately predict what a player will or won’t struggle with 2 days form bow. Much less 2 months.

    Blade,
    You said
    “Who putted best ? Stats say player 2. Reality says they are equal”.
    How can you think someone who made 29 putts averaging 20 ft. without missing isn’t a better putter than someone who made 29 putts from 5 ft. without missing. Player 2 should be working on hitting his ball closer if he can go 29 for 29 from 10-32’. His SG putting would be so good, any other phase of the game would look avg. compared to that.

    It just points to him making longer putts. Not being a better putter. For all we know he misses anything inside 10 ft. And player 1 didn’t have any bombs to try. It’s only a guess at how well the guy who’s hitting it close will putt . Not to mention break and speed aren’t calculated in. Just flat distance .

    I’m simply saying I don’t believe in the stat enough to call upon it anytime anything is debated.

    C'mon now. You can't mean that. Someone who makes 29 of 29 from 10-32' putted very, very, very well. About as well as anyone has ever putted in the history of the game. And you're saying because we didn't also see him make some 5-footers we don't know that he putted well?

    You're just doing the old Analytics Are For Losers schtick, now.

    At his very best, Jordan Spieth may have been something like 24 for 29 from 10-32' in the best tournament of his life. Hitting 29 in a row from outside of 10' is beyond great.

    Posted:
    “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.” 
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day... south carolina 28257Members Posts: 28,257
    Joined:  #162

    @North Butte said:

    @bladehunter said:

    @mhudson111 said:

    @bladehunter said:

    @North Butte said:
    Strokes Gained correctly accounts for putting from close range, long range and in between. As long as the distances are accurate (and on Tour with Shotlink they are very accurate) and as long as you putt everything out (again, we can count on that during Tour events) then you can not trick or fool Strokes Gained by simply hitting the ball closer than your competitors. The stat does not work that way, no matter how many times you restate it in different words.

    I'm not trying to "rake" you. Just trying to explain that you (apparently) fundamentally misunderstand what Strokes Gained is measuring. Either that or you understand it and are arguing the opposite for some other reason I can't fathom.

    If Rory hits a bunch of approach shots to five feet, his Strokes Gained: Putting will reflect how many of those he made as compared to how many a Tour player on average would make. If another player hits a bunch of approach shots to thirty feet, SG: Putting reflects how many more or less he made than a Tour player would on average.

    There's simply no mechanism for the stat to mistake good ball striking for good putting. Or vice versa.

    Look. We are saying the same thing. To make sure of that answer this . Player 1 makes 100 .% putts and they range from 2 ft to 8 ft. Total of 29. Player 2 makes 100 % of his putts and they range from 10 ft to 32 ft. Total of 29. Rough guess is that player 1. Stat for the day will show - 1.5 strokes gained and player 2. Will show -4.5 strokes gained ( or more ) for the day. Do you agree there ?

    Who putted best ? Stats say player 2. Reality says they are equal. Who needs to work on putting ? Neither. Or both. It’s inconclusive. Without a sample of the opposite Lengths from both we can’t say. And not even then.

    Now give player 1 the lead by 1 over player 2 and the tv talking heads and stats guys here will tell you that player 1 won by “ superior ball striking “. And will discount his putting entirely.

    I’m just tired of hearing “ strokes gained “ and being expected to take its interpretations as gospel. It’s no more conclusive in a lot of instances then GIR or number of putts a round. The truth is every day is different and you cannot accurately predict what a player will or won’t struggle with 2 days form bow. Much less 2 months.

    Blade,
    You said
    “Who putted best ? Stats say player 2. Reality says they are equal”.
    How can you think someone who made 29 putts averaging 20 ft. without missing isn’t a better putter than someone who made 29 putts from 5 ft. without missing. Player 2 should be working on hitting his ball closer if he can go 29 for 29 from 10-32’. His SG putting would be so good, any other phase of the game would look avg. compared to that.

    It just points to him making longer putts. Not being a better putter. For all we know he misses anything inside 10 ft. And player 1 didn’t have any bombs to try. It’s only a guess at how well the guy who’s hitting it close will putt . Not to mention break and speed aren’t calculated in. Just flat distance .

    I’m simply saying I don’t believe in the stat enough to call upon it anytime anything is debated.

    C'mon now. You can't mean that. Someone who makes 29 of 29 from 10-32' putted very, very, very well. About as well as anyone has ever putted in the history of the game. And you're saying because we didn't also see him make some 5-footers we don't know that he putted well?

    You're just doing the old Analytics Are For Losers schtick, now.

    At his very best, Jordan Spieth may have been something like 24 for 29 from 10-32' in the best tournament of his life. Hitting 29 in a row from outside of 10' is beyond great.

    Sure it is great. It was just an extreme example. Not meant literal. But to illustrate that comparing two players who don’t hit the same putts is futile.

    Posted:
    Ping G410  11.2* Tensei pro OrangeV2 proto 70TX 
    Ping G410 15.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Ping G410 21* ADDI 105x 
    Ping Blueprint  4-PW   Modus 130X 
    Ping Glide Forged  50  54 60 s400
    Cameron ICC prototype CT Fastback Armlock.  42 inch with jumbo max 17 inch  grip.   


  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • smashdnsmashdn Let's cut them trees down.  1555Members Posts: 1,555
    Joined:  edited Sep 16, 2019 2:49pm #163

    @bladehunter said:
    You can compare all 8 footers on tour for the year and guess at what the make % should be. But .... you do not account for break , speed or situational pressure. So is it 50.% accurate ? Who knows. We a know that all 8 footers aren’t created equally.

    But yes. For a looooong term look I get it. For fun. But . I don’t get the usefulness of it . Soo many variable change with most putters over that long period that it has to be a game of pin the tail on the donkey. No ?

    It is a mountain of data that is so large the individual variables (outside of distance) are obfuscated. You are correct though, it is only looking at one variable for putting and that is distance. It is certainly not the only variable but it has been discussed that distance is the variable with the largest impact on whether a shot is made over all others. So when you practice your eight footers you should practice uphill, downhill, L2R and R2L. The drills you pick should build in some pressure as well. Put a wager on them.

    The reason I would look at it would be to measure my putting game against a norm or average, to see if there are any places where I am giving up shots to my peer group I am measuring my game to. From there I could develop a practice plan to address any shortcomings. Maybe I three putt from 30'+ way more than I should. The numbers give you a benchmark to measure to.

    Posted:
  • cleatiscleatis  84Members Posts: 84
    Joined:  #164

    Things that keep me at or around par. The putter covers up a lot of mistakes and absolutely never short side yourself.

    Posted:
  • davep043davep043  3839Members Posts: 3,839
    Joined:  #165

    @smashdn said:
    It is a mountain of data that is so large the individual variables (outside of distance) are obfuscated. You are correct though, it is only looking at one variable for putting and that is distance. It is certainly not the only variable but it has been discussed that distance is the variable with the largest impact on whether a shot is made over all others.

    Any statistical analysis works best when its based on measurable data, like the length of the putt. Break, uphill/downhill, pressure, those are all subjective, very difficult quantify, and so very difficult to analyze. I can't imagine how you would start to look at the other issues. Do you have a separate category for 8-foot putts, downhill, 6 to 12 inches left to right break, to win the tournament? It seems to me that the only realistic way to categorize putting is by a measurable criteria, distance.

    Posted:
  • Nard_SNard_S  3576Members Posts: 3,576
    Joined:  #166

    Where SG loses me is one can track aggregates of FIR, GIR putts and up & downs and over time see where things are and get same guidance Also putting stats that only account for distance and do not take into account the path and slope of approach to hole are superficial. If greens are 10 or above, playing from below the hole & long sided becomes critical to good scoring. A down hill left to right, is statistically more difficult to make than an up hill R to L. It just is, even for Pro's.

    Posted:
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day... south carolina 28257Members Posts: 28,257
    Joined:  edited Sep 18, 2019 4:58pm #167

    @Nard_S said:
    Where SG loses me is one can track aggregates of FIR, GIR putts and up & downs and over time see where things are and get same guidance Also putting stats that only account for distance and do not take into account the path and slope of approach to hole are superficial. If greens are 10 or above, playing from below the hole & long sided becomes critical to good scoring. A down hill left to right, is statistically more difficult to make than an up hill R to L. It just is, even for Pro's.

    Yes^.

    I wouldn’t have near the issue with it as I do , except it’s accepted as perfect gospel and regurgitated regularly as such nowadays. Nobody stops to think of why it cannot be a stone etched rule of thumb. I will give them credit though. It’s been marketed perfectly to get people to buy in without question. I just think it’s alot placebo. And that’s sells better in this game than any.

    But the Cameron champs of the world are figuring out that you need more than strokes gained from the tee to actually score.

    Now that comment will excite some and cause a statement like “ sure. And now he can gauge where he needs to improve “. Sure. But . It’s almost a self fulfilling prophecy. You take a kid like him. Tell him he only needs to hit it long , then when met with complete players he doesn’t accelerate as expected. Then you go back to the teaching and say “ oh we can see your deficiencies “ fix this and that.

    Well , 25 years ago he’d have been taught to score well before now and minus any complicated stats. So is it helping ? Or just making people stumble ?

    Posted:
    Ping G410  11.2* Tensei pro OrangeV2 proto 70TX 
    Ping G410 15.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Ping G410 21* ADDI 105x 
    Ping Blueprint  4-PW   Modus 130X 
    Ping Glide Forged  50  54 60 s400
    Cameron ICC prototype CT Fastback Armlock.  42 inch with jumbo max 17 inch  grip.   


  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • davep043davep043  3839Members Posts: 3,839
    Joined:  #168

    @bladehunter said:

    I wouldn’t have near the issue with it as I do , except it’s accepted as perfect gospel and regurgitated regularly as such nowadays. Nobody stops to think of why it cannot be a stone etched rule of thumb. I will give them credit though. It’s been marketed perfectly to get people to buy in without question. I just think it’s alot placebo. And that’s sells better in this game than any.

    Well , 25 years ago he’d have been taught to score well before now and minus any complicated stats. So is it helping ? Or just making people stumble ?

    I guess there's a simple question, is there a better tool to analyze a player's strengths and weaknesses?

    Posted:
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day... south carolina 28257Members Posts: 28,257
    Joined:  #169

    @davep043 said:

    @bladehunter said:

    I wouldn’t have near the issue with it as I do , except it’s accepted as perfect gospel and regurgitated regularly as such nowadays. Nobody stops to think of why it cannot be a stone etched rule of thumb. I will give them credit though. It’s been marketed perfectly to get people to buy in without question. I just think it’s alot placebo. And that’s sells better in this game than any.

    Well , 25 years ago he’d have been taught to score well before now and minus any complicated stats. So is it helping ? Or just making people stumble ?

    I guess there's a simple question, is there a better tool to analyze a player's strengths and weaknesses?

    Score ? I mean that’s the real stat.

    But if I must , GIR , plus proximity, and putts per round will get it done. And I get that this is an over dramatized version of those stats. I just believe that the minutia of it all has paralyzing properties. And isn’t any real new info at all.

    If a guy misses greens with his gap wedge. He knows it. And if he 3 putts. He knows it. I don’t mean this personally at you , but I’m just sick of this idea that any good player should be a strokes gained guru. I believe it has as much or more potential for paralysis by analysis than it does to unearth some unknown truth.

    Posted:
    Ping G410  11.2* Tensei pro OrangeV2 proto 70TX 
    Ping G410 15.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Ping G410 21* ADDI 105x 
    Ping Blueprint  4-PW   Modus 130X 
    Ping Glide Forged  50  54 60 s400
    Cameron ICC prototype CT Fastback Armlock.  42 inch with jumbo max 17 inch  grip.   


  • davep043davep043  3839Members Posts: 3,839
    Joined:  #170

    @bladehunter said:

    @davep043 said:

    Score ? I mean that’s the real stat.

    But if I must , GIR , plus proximity, and putts per round will get it done. And I get that this is an over dramatized version of those stats. I just believe that the minutia of it all has paralyzing properties. And isn’t any real new info at all.

    If a guy misses greens with his gap wedge. He knows it. And if he 3 putts. He knows it. I don’t mean this personally at you , but I’m just sick of this idea that any good player should be a strokes gained guru. I believe it has as much or more potential for paralysis by analysis than it does to unearth some unknown truth.

    I don't know about you, if I go out to practice, I'm going to allocate my time to the things that I think need improvement. I don't think that every player needs to understand strokes gained, but I HAVE said that SG is a good way to evaluate the pieces of a player's game. If you can do it with the more traditional stats, great. Some players like the way SG can provide some quantitative detail that is lacking in the traditional stats. I can't say I can see it paralyzing anyone, once a player goes to practice he's done with statistics for a while.

    Posted:
  • Warrior42111Warrior42111 Florida 156Members Posts: 156
    Joined:  #171

    @davep043 said:

    @bladehunter said:

    @davep043 said:

    Score ? I mean that’s the real stat.

    But if I must , GIR , plus proximity, and putts per round will get it done. And I get that this is an over dramatized version of those stats. I just believe that the minutia of it all has paralyzing properties. And isn’t any real new info at all.

    If a guy misses greens with his gap wedge. He knows it. And if he 3 putts. He knows it. I don’t mean this personally at you , but I’m just sick of this idea that any good player should be a strokes gained guru. I believe it has as much or more potential for paralysis by analysis than it does to unearth some unknown truth.

    I don't know about you, if I go out to practice, I'm going to allocate my time to the things that I think need improvement. I don't think that every player needs to understand strokes gained, but I HAVE said that SG is a good way to evaluate the pieces of a player's game. If you can do it with the more traditional stats, great. Some players like the way SG can provide some quantitative detail that is lacking in the traditional stats. I can't say I can see it paralyzing anyone, once a player goes to practice he's done with statistics for a while.

    An older article but good points GIR and par save % are the better indicator of score FIR and Putts are the worse

    http://probablegolfinstruction.com/golf-scoring-statistics.htm

    Posted:

    Taylormade M6 10.5| Project X Even Flow Black X 6.5
    Taylormade M4 Tour 15 * |Mitsubishi Tensei CK White 70 X
    Ping G400 18
    | PING Alta CB 65 Stiff
    Callaway Apex 19 4-PW | Nippon Modus Tour 3 120 X
    Callaway MD4 48* / 54* / 59* | Nippon Modus Tour 3 120 X
    Odyssey Stroke Lab, Toulon Memphis 34"

  • smashdnsmashdn Let's cut them trees down.  1555Members Posts: 1,555
    Joined:  #172

    @bladehunter said:
    Yes^.

    I wouldn’t have near the issue with it as I do , except it’s accepted as perfect gospel and regurgitated regularly as such nowadays. Nobody stops to think of why it cannot be a stone etched rule of thumb. I will give them credit though. It’s been marketed perfectly to get people to buy in without question. I just think it’s alot placebo. And that’s sells better in this game than any.

    But the Cameron champs of the world are figuring out that you need more than strokes gained from the tee to actually score.

    Now that comment will excite some and cause a statement like “ sure. And now he can gauge where he needs to improve “. Sure. But . It’s almost a self fulfilling prophecy. You take a kid like him. Tell him he only needs to hit it long , then when met with complete players he doesn’t accelerate as expected. Then you go back to the teaching and say “ oh we can see your deficiencies “ fix this and that.

    Well , 25 years ago he’d have been taught to score well before now and minus any complicated stats. So is it helping ? Or just making people stumble ?

    Not that I am intending to tel you what you are saying but what I interpret from what I keep reading from you is not that the SG concept is bad but the people who are touting it are doing so without acknowledging the known and inherent shortcomings. Is that fair?

    Broadie goes into detail that the data cannot measure the impact of break in the SG Putting stats, or pressure of the situation or spot in the round etc. He does go into detail about how to evaluate break and a method to reading putts and understanding the influence of slope and break on the eventual path of the ball.

    He also concedes that the full stroke stats can't take into account the affect of rough on the shot. And that leads to a key takeaway regarding bomb and gouge, there comes a point where you tip the balance between the advantage of being in the fairway versus being closer and in the rough. That has many variables that cannot be discretely measured.

    I have found it best not to think of the data as a linear phenomena where x = y but more of a band of or range of data where x +-1or2 = y +- 1or2. That would then take into account additional variables that we cannot measure or even know exist and the natural variability of our swings. It is completely possible for us to be aware of variability, measure its impact but not know the source.

    Regarding the Cameron Champ anecdote. He is likely learning that what was once a great advantage over his peer group is now no longer as much of an advantage when compared to his new peer group. I wouldn't say it is self fulfilling. It is however predictable. Look at any player where one aspect of his game is head and shoulders better than second best. Eventually they come back closer to the average. I'd be curious to see J. Spieth's putting numbers from when he was doing so well compared to the field. I am sure that data is out there somewhere to be found. Putting out of his mind was an aberration. When he came back closer to the pack, closer to the average, all the other aspects of his game that were at our below average were magnified when they could no longer be covered for by his putting. You now get to choose, do I go and try to be the best putter in the world again or should I go work on areas where I am below average or in areas that are easier to get better at?

    You literally can mathematically assign a value to measure the impact of certain aspects of the game to its importance to winning. You can rank them. In the short term Broadie shows it is whoever gets a hot putter who wins most of the time. But across a whole season it is something else that I forget (maybe long iron approaches? I know he showed that with Tiger.) that is the greatest indicator to who wins. I would bet it has changed a bit from year to year and maybe from the time Every Shot Counts came out to now.

    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day... south carolina 28257Members Posts: 28,257
    Joined:  edited Sep 18, 2019 9:19pm #173

    @smashdn said:

    @bladehunter said:
    Yes^.

    I wouldn’t have near the issue with it as I do , except it’s accepted as perfect gospel and regurgitated regularly as such nowadays. Nobody stops to think of why it cannot be a stone etched rule of thumb. I will give them credit though. It’s been marketed perfectly to get people to buy in without question. I just think it’s alot placebo. And that’s sells better in this game than any.

    But the Cameron champs of the world are figuring out that you need more than strokes gained from the tee to actually score.

    Now that comment will excite some and cause a statement like “ sure. And now he can gauge where he needs to improve “. Sure. But . It’s almost a self fulfilling prophecy. You take a kid like him. Tell him he only needs to hit it long , then when met with complete players he doesn’t accelerate as expected. Then you go back to the teaching and say “ oh we can see your deficiencies “ fix this and that.

    Well , 25 years ago he’d have been taught to score well before now and minus any complicated stats. So is it helping ? Or just making people stumble ?

    Not that I am intending to tel you what you are saying but what I interpret from what I keep reading from you is not that the SG concept is bad but the people who are touting it are doing so without acknowledging the known and inherent shortcomings. Is that fair?

    Broadie goes into detail that the data cannot measure the impact of break in the SG Putting stats, or pressure of the situation or spot in the round etc. He does go into detail about how to evaluate break and a method to reading putts and understanding the influence of slope and break on the eventual path of the ball.

    He also concedes that the full stroke stats can't take into account the affect of rough on the shot. And that leads to a key takeaway regarding bomb and gouge, there comes a point where you tip the balance between the advantage of being in the fairway versus being closer and in the rough. That has many variables that cannot be discretely measured.

    I have found it best not to think of the data as a linear phenomena where x = y but more of a band of or range of data where x +-1or2 = y +- 1or2. That would then take into account additional variables that we cannot measure or even know exist and the natural variability of our swings. It is completely possible for us to be aware of variability, measure its impact but not know the source.

    Regarding the Cameron Champ anecdote. He is likely learning that what was once a great advantage over his peer group is now no longer as much of an advantage when compared to his new peer group. I wouldn't say it is self fulfilling. It is however predictable. Look at any player where one aspect of his game is head and shoulders better than second best. Eventually they come back closer to the average. I'd be curious to see J. Spieth's putting numbers from when he was doing so well compared to the field. I am sure that data is out there somewhere to be found. Putting out of his mind was an aberration. When he came back closer to the pack, closer to the average, all the other aspects of his game that were at our below average were magnified when they could no longer be covered for by his putting. You now get to choose, do I go and try to be the best putter in the world again or should I go work on areas where I am below average or in areas that are easier to get better at?

    You literally can mathematically assign a value to measure the impact of certain aspects of the game to its importance to winning. You can rank them. In the short term Broadie shows it is whoever gets a hot putter who wins most of the time. But across a whole season it is something else that I forget (maybe long iron approaches? I know he showed that with Tiger.) that is the greatest indicator to who wins. I would bet it has changed a bit from year to year and maybe from the time Every Shot Counts came out to now.

    Lol. Yep. Exactly to the first paragraph. And I understand and mostly agree with the rest.

    Could I hire you to speak on my behalf in the tour talk section.? lol ( a joke ). Ive literally said the same about the hot putter and it invites a pitchfork and torch brigade that rivals any attacks I’ve experienced here.

    Maybe I take things too literal ? But when it’s exclaimed over and over again that distance off the tee is the most important thing , and putting is an afterthought it’s hard to not take that as literal gospel. And you don’t have to look hard over there to find that sermon being preached.

    Posted:
    Ping G410  11.2* Tensei pro OrangeV2 proto 70TX 
    Ping G410 15.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    Ping G410 21* ADDI 105x 
    Ping Blueprint  4-PW   Modus 130X 
    Ping Glide Forged  50  54 60 s400
    Cameron ICC prototype CT Fastback Armlock.  42 inch with jumbo max 17 inch  grip.   


  • smashdnsmashdn Let's cut them trees down.  1555Members Posts: 1,555
    Joined:  #174

    Distance in general is the most important thing. I would say it is not that putting is an afterthought, just that the bulk of people not familiar with the percentages that a good putter makes, incorrectly assume that they themselves are bad putters because they miss putts. Putting looks easy but is deceptively hard. So when you truly look at your performance compared against the best in the world you find you aren't as bad as you thought you were, you breathe a little sigh of relief and stop spending hours on the putting green not really gaining much on your game as a whole. Objective assessment is the lynch pin holding it all together.

    Distance is the most important thing because of this - The distance remaining to the hole is the variable with the most impact on your ability to hit it in the hole with the next shot. In practice a ten foot putt is more likely to go into the hole than a ten yard chip. A ten yard chip is more likely to go in than a 50 yard pitch. A 50 yard pitch more likely than 150 yard approach shot. You can replace "more likely to go in the hole" with "stays closer to the hole" if you like as well. Distance breeds accuracy (or less dispersion is probably the better way to phrase it). The more distance I can shave off with a shot the more likely I am to make the subsequent shot.

    ^That is why Broadie kind of poo poos the idea of laying up to a yardage. The data says that if you elect to lay back to 100 or 110 to avoid a 50 or 60 yard pitch you are actually increasing your dispersion and thereby lessening your chances of hitting it in or sticking it close. And there is probably a point where the immeasurable variables overcome that thought too. You need to be intimately familiar with your game to know where that is. Most amateurs don't have enough rounds (and therefore data points) to base that decision so they have to rely on an accepted "rule of thumb". If you are going to choose between the two rules of thumb, laying back to 100 yards or hitting it as close as you can get with the club in your hand, the data leans towards hitting it closer when you can.

    Posted:
  • SNIPERBBBSNIPERBBB Hit Ball Hard SE Ohio 2878Members Posts: 2,878
    Joined:  #175

    I think AMs as a rule need to pay attention to the law of diminishing returns or low hanging fruit than anything else. It's why I cringe when someone tells a person they should do X for hours on end with no reference to anything else. All the chipping isn't going to do your scores any good when it takes you par or worse to get close enough to the green to chip because you keep hitting the ball OB and chunking your irons.

    Posted:
    2016 M1 9.5 tuned to 7.5
    TM r15 3 wood
    Adams Idea Pro 2h/4h
    Mizuno JPX 900 HM 5-PW
    Vokey SM7 48* F Grind
    Vokey SM7 54* F Grind
    Vokey SM7 58* M Grind
  • GSDriverGSDriver  683Members Posts: 683
    Joined:  #176

    100% stay away from the range....haven't been to a range in over a decade, might waste a good swing.
    Fitting, for putter, maybe, driver yes.
    Wedge play and short game save most strokes, assuming you can keep the ball in play.

    Posted:
    Epic Speeder 661
    Rogue 4 Wood Evenflow 75 Blue
    Epic Hybrids 3/4/5
    Apex Pro 6-P Recoil 110 F4
    MD Slate Forged 52
    PM Grind 56/60
    Odyssey 7S
    All grips except putter are Iomic Sticky 2.3
  • davep043davep043  3839Members Posts: 3,839
    Joined:  #177

    @GSDriver said:
    100% stay away from the range....haven't been to a range in over a decade, might waste a good swing.
    Fitting, for putter, maybe, driver yes.
    Wedge play and short game save most strokes, assuming you can keep the ball in play.

    I go back to the original post, this is intended for players new to the game. In my experience, those players do NOT keep the ball in play consistently, that is the single most important thing for them to learn in order to make progress. I really don't know how anyone can do that without actually practicing full swings.

    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • Exactice808Exactice808 Just want to hit ball far and go find it...  4724Members Posts: 4,724
    Joined:  #178

    @davep043 said:

    @bladehunter said:

    I wouldn’t have near the issue with it as I do , except it’s accepted as perfect gospel and regurgitated regularly as such nowadays. Nobody stops to think of why it cannot be a stone etched rule of thumb. I will give them credit though. It’s been marketed perfectly to get people to buy in without question. I just think it’s alot placebo. And that’s sells better in this game than any.

    Well , 25 years ago he’d have been taught to score well before now and minus any complicated stats. So is it helping ? Or just making people stumble ?

    I guess there's a simple question, is there a better tool to analyze a player's strengths and weaknesses?

    I think thats the better question

    1) I agree SG great and I give it credit, YET its a tool, But there are MANY other great tools, like a "Tourstriker", Speed Stick, MEVO etc.
    2) Golfers come in all shapes and sizes and the variables to boot. I personally see SG as a HIGH level tool that applies to all golfers But those that need EXACT pinpoint precision to know the full ins and out is what gives them that extra edge t o win tournaments.
    3) SG for a say a player like myself whom is LOTS of issues and more so BASIC swing issue where the inconsistencies in the game wont be fixed by analyzing the SG metric until I create some type of consistency. Imagine, my with a scoring average of 83 right now, Yet I shoot 78 one day and 88 the next thats a 10 stroke swing which the obvious FIR,GIR and putting metrics tells me I suck. THE SG would be WAY to specific and sure it would tell me the same yet how can I fix a SG metric when the SWING or basis of skill is NOT worthy of an SG metric?

    IS there a better tool.... specific to SG of course not its ground breaking..but again I feel its measurable to a high level golfer rather than the mid to high capper. We just have too MUCH going on in our golf swing to quantify this SPECIFIC situation and area sucks....all areas suck and need work and then more important? Some type of consistency..

    Posted:
    Titleist 915D3 
    TM M2v1 - 
    TM 18* M2 
    TM TP MC 4 & 5 PX 6.0 Rifles
    Cobra AMP Cell Pro 6-PW PX 6.0 Rifles
    Titleist SM5 Vokey50*/8*, 54*/10* & 58*/8* X100's
    Scotty Newport 2 33"
  • smashdnsmashdn Let's cut them trees down.  1555Members Posts: 1,555
    Joined:  #179

    @davep043 said:
    I guess there's a simple question, is there a better tool to analyze a player's strengths and weaknesses?

    My opinion, and it's only an opinion, is that of the "traditional" stats, Greens In Regulation is the next best indicator/influencer on score. If you expanded that stat to what was coined in Lowest Score Wins, Near Green in Regulation I think you have a winner.

    But strictly to the definition of measuring a golfer's game in its entirety, SG is it. But if a golfer elects to use it they have to understand what it cannot do. It cannot diagnose swing problems or tell them how to improve, only where. It is up to the individual golfer to apply the information they gain. Lowest Score Wins is a roadmap and offers suggestions.

    Posted:
  • davep043davep043  3839Members Posts: 3,839
    Joined:  #180

    @smashdn said:

    @davep043 said:
    I guess there's a simple question, is there a better tool to analyze a player's strengths and weaknesses?

    But strictly to the definition of measuring a golfer's game in its entirety, SG is it. But if a golfer elects to use it they have to understand what it cannot do. It cannot diagnose swing problems or tell them how to improve, only where. It is up to the individual golfer to apply the information they gain. Lowest Score Wins is a roadmap and offers suggestions.

    I have to agree with this. It can be a real effort to keep statistics that are detailed enough to allow real use of Strokes Gained evaluations, unless you use game-tracking systems like Game Golf. But you can use some of the concepts in a much less formal way when you look back at a single round. If you 3-putt repeatedly from 20 feet, putting is an issue. If you 3-putt from 50 or 60 feet, that's not a putting issue as much as it is an approach-shot issue. If you miss greens from 200 yards away, that's reasonable as long as you hit "decent" shots near the green. If you miss them with short irons, its an issue with your short irons, or maybe an issue with your selection of a target. If you always have 200 yard shots left, you either need to move up a tee, or hit your tee shots further.
    I'm with you, there's a lot to be learned from LSW. I haven't read Broadie's book, but I've learned some of the concepts.

    Posted:
  • GolfWRXGolfWRX Warning Points: 0  11 Members Posts: 11 #ad
    Joined:  ...

    Advertisement
  • North ButteNorth Butte  11741Members Posts: 11,741
    Joined:  #181

    For my game, definitely the indicator of when I'm playing my best is being on or near the green in regulation. By that I mean in a place where I can putt or use a simple bump and run shot from just off the green.

    But it's an "indicator" that doesn't actually tell me anything at all in terms of a diagnosis or prescriptions. It's pretty proximal to the ultimate stat "Score". Figuring out how to improve my name needs more distal indicators, of the stuff happening earlier in the hole that was causal for ending up on-or-near vs. not.

    Posted:
    “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.” 
7

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file