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

[AlecEmersonGolf]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @AlecEmersonGolf said:

> > I'm not trying to be a downer.

> >

> > If you consistently shoot in the 80s you have no place trying to give others advice.

>

> I actually respectfully disagree.... With that ,

>

> I think players that shoot in the 80's are at a cusp point in the golfing game. This moment is a make it or break it time.

>

> What I mean is breaking into the 90's means you have reached a point where your ball striking has become manageable, I use the term manageable as getting around the course is not a struggle you hit good shots but have a lack of consistency, yet can scramble to make enough pars or birdies to offset the bogeys or worse.

>

> Being in the mid 80's in my opinion is where the "REAL" golfer has to make a choice. Find a way to break into the 70's or become complacent and accept where they are now. I fancy many golfers give up going any further... GolfWRX being the anomaly is where the small portion try to break through the 80's barrier.

>

> What I have noticed in my opinion about the mid 80's player.

>

> 1) Player with a bad swing to begin with, but offset it with enough putting and short game to minimize the inconsistencies. Due to the inherent bad swing going any further will be difficult. This requires an overhaul which not all golfers may be will to do!

>

> 2) Player with a good swing but lacks course management and ego control (most golfers period). Their game is SOLID but their Choices are lacking and many of times makes the wrong choice to which their score suffers. They can put good rounds together and even better if they maintain their game better.

>

> 3) The Player that lacks consistency, They have a good swing/mechanics but requires practice to maintain better golf YET either dont have the time, commitment or ability to do so. Some players need to drill and drill and drill not all but some..... with enough drilling they can get down and fast.

>

>

> So its interesting to see what a mid 80's player and what advice they might have, They know the real struggle as personally I believe with enough management for ANYONE, we can get them to shoot somewhere in the 80's. BUT to break into the 70's requires a degree of skill and technically proficiency period.

>

> You do NOT need to a scratch golfer or a major winner to give advice and that sound advice, it validates it but its not a requirement.

>

 

in my experience, 80s golfers know just about nothing about golf. if they knew more they wouldn't shoot in the 80s. sure maybe a person who shoots in the 80s can tell a newbie how to get to their level, but to suggest that an 80s player has any right to talk to masses about their knowledge of the game is foolish imo.

[Exactice808]

> @AlecEmersonGolf said:

 

> in my experience, 80s golfers know just about nothing about golf. if they knew more they wouldn't shoot in the 80s. sure maybe a person who shoots in the 80s can tell a newbie how to get to their level, but to suggest that an 80s player has any right to talk to masses about their knowledge of the game is foolish imo.

 

I can respect your "experience" while I may be taking your points out of context. I still disagree with your assessment.

 

there are 3 types of 80's players

 

1) A person that JUST lowered their scoring average and reached 80's

2) A golfer that has played golf and either reached a higher level but deteriorated back to 80's

3) A high level player that HAD TO BE an 80's golfer but now a high level single, scratch or plus.

 

https://golfblogger.com/what_percentage_of_golfers_shoot_under_100/

 

Average golf score is 100

USGA Male average is 16.1 women 29.2

Under 80 - 5%

80-89 - 21%

90-99 29%

100-109-24% et

 

Point being that 26% of all golfers are 80's or better, leaving 74% of all golfers worse off..... So yes I think the 21% of 80-89 players have somewhat valuable experiences to share with the other 74% of golfers. And possible.....still with the reaming 5% be it physical or mental.

 

and per my above, if 21% make up 80's golfers I think they do have a little credibility to talk to the masses of which make up 74% WORSE Score then them and thats JUST going purely off score not on knowledge or ACTUAL credibility.

 

Im an 80's golfer, I reached single digits at one point in my career with a TERRIBLE swing.... while I hold ZERO credibility, titles or edification of golfing knowledge, I feel that I have experience that may be valuable to other golfers and up coming golfers. To say that I personally have zero right to talk to the masses and anyone that listen to me is a fool seems pretty obtuse no?

 

[North Butte]

> @AlecEmersonGolf said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @AlecEmersonGolf said:

> > > I'm not trying to be a downer.

> > >

> > > If you consistently shoot in the 80s you have no place trying to give others advice.

> >

> > I actually respectfully disagree.... With that ,

> >

> > I think players that shoot in the 80's are at a cusp point in the golfing game. This moment is a make it or break it time.

> >

> > What I mean is breaking into the 90's means you have reached a point where your ball striking has become manageable, I use the term manageable as getting around the course is not a struggle you hit good shots but have a lack of consistency, yet can scramble to make enough pars or birdies to offset the bogeys or worse.

> >

> > Being in the mid 80's in my opinion is where the "REAL" golfer has to make a choice. Find a way to break into the 70's or become complacent and accept where they are now. I fancy many golfers give up going any further... GolfWRX being the anomaly is where the small portion try to break through the 80's barrier.

> >

> > What I have noticed in my opinion about the mid 80's player.

> >

> > 1) Player with a bad swing to begin with, but offset it with enough putting and short game to minimize the inconsistencies. Due to the inherent bad swing going any further will be difficult. This requires an overhaul which not all golfers may be will to do!

> >

> > 2) Player with a good swing but lacks course management and ego control (most golfers period). Their game is SOLID but their Choices are lacking and many of times makes the wrong choice to which their score suffers. They can put good rounds together and even better if they maintain their game better.

> >

> > 3) The Player that lacks consistency, They have a good swing/mechanics but requires practice to maintain better golf YET either dont have the time, commitment or ability to do so. Some players need to drill and drill and drill not all but some..... with enough drilling they can get down and fast.

> >

> >

> > So its interesting to see what a mid 80's player and what advice they might have, They know the real struggle as personally I believe with enough management for ANYONE, we can get them to shoot somewhere in the 80's. BUT to break into the 70's requires a degree of skill and technically proficiency period.

> >

> > You do NOT need to a scratch golfer or a major winner to give advice and that sound advice, it validates it but its not a requirement.

> >

>

> in my experience, 80s golfers know just about nothing about golf. if they knew more they wouldn't shoot in the 80s. sure maybe a person who shoots in the 80s can tell a newbie how to get to their level, but to suggest that an 80s player has any right to talk to masses about their knowledge of the game is foolish imo.

 

Some 20+ hcp beginner (not me!) asked my teaching pro buddy once, "How good does a player have to be for me to learn something from him". The answer was, "If he can break par from the back tees with serious money on the line, maybe he's worth taking advice from. Otherwise, just thank him for his suggestions and ignore him." which I think is about right.

[Exactice808]

> @"North Butte" said:

 

> Some 20+ hcp beginner (not me!) asked my teaching pro buddy once, "How good does a player have to be for me to learn something from him". The answer was, "If he can break par from the back tees with serious money on the line, maybe he's worth taking advice from. Otherwise, just thank him for his suggestions and ignore him." which I think is about right.

 

While this hold truth..... is it universal?

Hank Haney,

Butch Harmon

George Gankas

Sean Foley....

 

I mean to say that breaking par from back tees with money on the line edifies you as a coach/instructor. seems to devalue the actual KNOWLEDGE that some coaches have taken the time to learn and share... With that.... while I am being focused on coaching, I agree with "thank them for their suggestion and move" is highly appropriate, but to say that they are invalid and if you actually take the advice you are foolish seems a little over the top no?

 

there is a flip side... that driving rage pro hack.... they show up.... but even respectfully here on GolfWRX...... we are a mixed back of golfers with lots of experience to share.... I am NOT sure how many "hackers" here can break par from the back to with money on the line... yet share lots of tips and info. Are the discredited now? just seems pretty hostile especially on a public forum with the INTENT to share info?

[smashdn]

I don't know what Mark Broadie or Bob Rotella's handicaps are. Plenty of tour players have sought them out for help with their games however.

[North Butte]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

>

> > Some 20+ hcp beginner (not me!) asked my teaching pro buddy once, "How good does a player have to be for me to learn something from him". The answer was, "If he can break par from the back tees with serious money on the line, maybe he's worth taking advice from. Otherwise, just thank him for his suggestions and ignore him." which I think is about right.

>

> While this hold truth..... is it universal?

> Hank Haney,

> Butch Harmon

> George Gankas

> Sean Foley....

>

> I mean to say that breaking par from back tees with money on the line edifies you as a coach/instructor. seems to devalue the actual KNOWLEDGE that some coaches have taken the time to learn and share... With that.... while I am being focused on coaching, I agree with "thank them for their suggestion and move" is highly appropriate, but to say that they are invalid and if you actually take the advice you are foolish seems a little over the top no?

>

> there is a flip side... that driving rage pro hack.... they show up.... but even respectfully here on GolfWRX...... we are a mixed back of golfers with lots of experience to share.... I am NOT sure how many "hackers" here can break par from the back to with money on the line... yet share lots of tips and info. Are the discredited now? just seems pretty hostile especially on a public forum with the INTENT to share info?

 

He wasn't referring to trained teaching professionals. He was talking about a beginner asking advice of some random guy who shoots in the 80's and seems (to the beginner) like a pretty good player. If you want a professional teacher, ask about his credentials and talk to other golfers he's worked with. If you want advice from "some random guy" then you'd best limit it to guys who can play the game for real.

 

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.

[TMoakley1547]

Im with Exactice on this one. I obviously dont know what Exactice shoots, but as a high handicapper (talking high 20's here, at best), could I learn something from someone who shoots in the 80's? I strongly feel like I could. Would i take technical swing advice from an 80's shooter, no probably not. But I doubt that theres nothing I could learn from an 80's shooter that could help me with my game.

[Exactice808]

> @"North Butte" said:

 

> He wasn't referring to trained teaching professionals. He was talking about a beginner asking advice of some random guy who shoots in the 80's and seems (to the beginner) like a pretty good player. If you want a professional teacher, ask about his credentials and talk to other golfers he's worked with. If you want advice from "some random guy" then you'd best limit it to guys who can play the game for real.

>

> 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.

 

Again I acknowledge that I may have taken it out of context in relation to coaches.

 

But the posters statement was pretty finite.

> @AlecEmersonGolf said:

> I'm not trying to be a downer.

>

> If you consistently shoot in the 80s **_you have no place trying to give others advice_**.

>@AlecEmersonGolf said:

> in my experience, 80s golfers know just about nothing about golf. if they knew more they wouldn't shoot in the 80s. sure maybe a person who shoots in the 80s can tell a newbie how to get to their level, **_but to suggest that an 80s player has any right to talk to masses about their knowledge of the game is foolish imo_**.

 

 

80's have no place trying to give other advice, 80's golfer know just about nothing about golf, 80's talking to the masses is foolish? pretty finite no?

 

I play the game for real, I study watch, read and learn LOTS.... but I shoot in the 80's I have taken LOTS of time devoted lots of PM to study the game I am NOT a teaching professional in the slightest..... yet I come on golf WRX post publicly to the masses (ignorantly at times) but share my experience... I dont give lesson ever but share my "knowledge" that I have come across over the 7 years on this site. That is foolish?

 

I think it foolish NOT to LEARN what you can when you can and apply what WORKS for the individual and discard what is not needed. but to call 80's player unqualified is a pretty hefty blanket statement.... and unjustifiable? I know a 80's player that is a rocket scientist (literally) and YES I would take his advice as he understands statistics WAY better than I do, yet his SWING is ugly as hell.......

 

So I am just throwing caution at the "blanket" statements being thrown out that all!

 

Its funny I dont even AGREE with HALF of what the OP actually posted, but to say he has no write to express himself on a public forum designed for discussion to me is a little sad and disappointing thats all.

 

[North Butte]

> @Exactice808 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

>

> > He wasn't referring to trained teaching professionals. He was talking about a beginner asking advice of some random guy who shoots in the 80's and seems (to the beginner) like a pretty good player. If you want a professional teacher, ask about his credentials and talk to other golfers he's worked with. If you want advice from "some random guy" then you'd best limit it to guys who can play the game for real.

> >

> > 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.

>

> Again I acknowledge that I may have taken it out of context in relation to coaches.

>

> But the posters statement was pretty finite.

> > @AlecEmersonGolf said:

> > I'm not trying to be a downer.

> >

> > If you consistently shoot in the 80s **_you have no place trying to give others advice_**.

> >@AlecEmersonGolf said:

> > in my experience, 80s golfers know just about nothing about golf. if they knew more they wouldn't shoot in the 80s. sure maybe a person who shoots in the 80s can tell a newbie how to get to their level, **_but to suggest that an 80s player has any right to talk to masses about their knowledge of the game is foolish imo_**.

>

>

> 80's have no place trying to give other advice, 80's golfer know just about nothing about golf, 80's talking to the masses is foolish? pretty finite no?

>

> I play the game for real, I study watch, read and learn LOTS.... but I shoot in the 80's I have taken LOTS of time devoted lots of PM to study the game I am NOT a teach professional in the slightest..... yet I come on golf WRX post publicly to the masses (ignorantly at times) but hare my experience... I dont give lesson every but share my "knowledge" that I have come across over the 7 years on this site. That is foolish?

>

> I think it foolish NOT to LEARN what you can when you can and apply what WORKS for the individual and discard what is not needed. but to call 80's player unqualified is a pretty hefty blanket statement.... and unjustifiable? I know a 80's player that is a rocket scientist (literally) and YES I would take his advice as he understands statistics WAY better than I do, yet his SWING is ugly as ****.......

>

> So I am just throwing caution at the "blanket" statements being thrown out that all!

 

Here's the problem. If you are a relative beginner, let's say you haven't broken 90 yet, then you not only know almost nothing about your golf swing or your golf game you also can't tell the difference between good information and bogus balloon juice. And that guy shooting in the 80's probably only knows a little more about golf swings in general than you do.

 

And if he bothers to volunteer advice, that just means he's someone who likes to give advice. Which is my experience in life (not particularly golf) tends be mostly two kinds of people. Those with their own elaborate, idiosyncratic theories about how things work or those who have swallowed some other guy's elaborate idiosyncratic theories which they are eager to share and spread around.

 

So by all means, go do that swing drill that the 8 hcp guy you met at the driving range gave you. It might even help. But be aware that more often than not you're going to going down the rabbit hole of just another random band-aid swing fix.

[Exactice808]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Exactice808 said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> >

> > > He wasn't referring to trained teaching professionals. He was talking about a beginner asking advice of some random guy who shoots in the 80's and seems (to the beginner) like a pretty good player. If you want a professional teacher, ask about his credentials and talk to other golfers he's worked with. If you want advice from "some random guy" then you'd best limit it to guys who can play the game for real.

> > >

> > > 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.

> >

> > Again I acknowledge that I may have taken it out of context in relation to coaches.

> >

> > But the posters statement was pretty finite.

> > > @AlecEmersonGolf said:

> > > I'm not trying to be a downer.

> > >

> > > If you consistently shoot in the 80s **_you have no place trying to give others advice_**.

> > >@AlecEmersonGolf said:

> > > in my experience, 80s golfers know just about nothing about golf. if they knew more they wouldn't shoot in the 80s. sure maybe a person who shoots in the 80s can tell a newbie how to get to their level, **_but to suggest that an 80s player has any right to talk to masses about their knowledge of the game is foolish imo_**.

> >

> >

> > 80's have no place trying to give other advice, 80's golfer know just about nothing about golf, 80's talking to the masses is foolish? pretty finite no?

> >

> > I play the game for real, I study watch, read and learn LOTS.... but I shoot in the 80's I have taken LOTS of time devoted lots of PM to study the game I am NOT a teach professional in the slightest..... yet I come on golf WRX post publicly to the masses (ignorantly at times) but hare my experience... I dont give lesson every but share my "knowledge" that I have come across over the 7 years on this site. That is foolish?

> >

> > I think it foolish NOT to LEARN what you can when you can and apply what WORKS for the individual and discard what is not needed. but to call 80's player unqualified is a pretty hefty blanket statement.... and unjustifiable? I know a 80's player that is a rocket scientist (literally) and YES I would take his advice as he understands statistics WAY better than I do, yet his SWING is ugly as ****.......

> >

> > So I am just throwing caution at the "blanket" statements being thrown out that all!

>

> Here's the problem. If you are a relative beginner, let's say you haven't broken 90 yet, then you not only know almost nothing about your golf swing or your golf game you also can't tell the difference between good information and bogus balloon juice. And that guy shooting in the 80's probably only knows a little more about golf swings in general than you do.

>

> And if he bothers to volunteer advice, that just means he's someone who likes to give advice. Which is my experience in life (not particularly golf) tends be mostly two kinds of people. Those with their own elaborate, idiosyncratic theories about how things work or those who have swallowed some other guy's elaborate idiosyncratic theories which they are eager to share and spread around.

>

> So by all means, go do that swing drill that the 8 hcp guy you met at the driving range gave you. It might even help. But be aware that more often than not you're going to going down the rabbit hole of just another random band-aid swing fix.

 

Totally agree with you.... just addressing the blanket statement.... my point is.... NOT all 80's players have bad intention, bad advice or just clueless in general. But not ALL 80's players are in their right mind either (me being one of them) So like you edify take the advice with a grain of salt.... but shutting them out completely and that at the driving range or randomly at the supermarket might be viable..... but on a golf forum where the OP took the time to even post.... we can at least read it digest it and move on........ thats my point...not assume foolishness just because he shoots in the 80's,

 

Side thought that would bake your noodle......what if he started shooting scratch in a couple of months due to some revelation... does the OP then now become qualified to give advice to the mass then? seems silly to justify advice purely on handicap..... but again thats just how I see it...

[bladehunter]

> @davep043 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > That's why some of us gnash our teeth every time someone talks about "putts per GIR" or "putts per round". Those claim to be saying something about "putting" but they're actually a mishmash of putting and ball striking.

> >

> > I’m going by the strokes gained spreadsheet I’ve used. Make of a close putt vs a long one gains a different amount. Flip it around when you miss. Miss a 3 footer and it’s a full shot gone. Miss a 15 footer and you might even gain depending on the leave.

> When you isolate putting, you're erasing all strokes gained (or lost) for the preceding shots. If I hit a 150 yard shot to 3 feet, I've picked up nearly a full shot in SG-Approach. If I miss that 3-footer, I'm lost a stroke in SG-Putting. If I hit the same shot to 15 feet, I'm probably about neutral, and when I 2-putt, I'm neutral in putting. If I hit it to 50 feet, I've probably lost a half-stroke or so. If I 2-putt from 50 feet, I've gained about a half-stroke putting. I'm making some of these numbers up for demonstration sake, but they're not way far off.. That's 3 different ways to take 3 strokes from 150 yards, breaking about even overall in SG, same result, but the SG stats point to a different culprit in each case. Add those numbers up over many rounds, many distance, and you'll probably be able to identify strengths and weaknesses.

>

 

I’m just telling you what I see with the sheet I’ve used. It takes into account proximity first then Make or miss 1st putt and then when you enter next putt it adjusts the previous putt for the amount of leave. Meaning it’s not final until it’s in the hole .

 

I’m not sure what you’re trying to tell me. I get that strokes gained approach and putting are separate.

 

I’ve entered shots into each sheet and watch the values change for each entry and then the total.

 

My point was making the point that proximity matters both ways. The closer you hit it the less chance you have to “ gain strokes “ with putter. Opposite is true too. If you are hitting it wide and making 1 putts you’re strokes gained putting stat will be off the chart.

 

I was just saying that those facts are never mentioned when people make those “ he won with ball striking “ claims. Simply because his strokes gained stat on the greens is mediocre. But those 4-7 foot putts he is making are just as or more pressure packed than the bombs and lags that the guy in 15th place with the leading strokes gained putting stat. This is just one of the holes in that line of stats.

[smashdn]

Can you put that file into dropbox or some file sharing place? I'd love to see it and see the background math.

[Barfolomew]

Funny you're talking about advice among different level players...... Cause I started a thread recently in the Website feedback section asking WRX to start a "Better Players" section.

 

Check it out its a few pages deep with mixed opinions. Everyone would be welcome to the forum but a lot of people got hung up on who would be allowed in.

 

The whole reason for the section would be to encourage "more advanced" conversations among good players while all can contribute.

 

Great advice can come from any level player because general advice can still be helpful even if from a chop. Overall the better player will know more. Maybe people on WRX are more motivated to learn and teach more then the avg guy at the course.... Earlier in this thread someone said the long game is about dispersion and short game about distance control..... very interesting to ponder that and it coulda came from a guy who shoots in 90s or a pro but makes you think.... makes me want to focus more on accuracy with driver and more emphasis on dropping those wedge shots at range to front of green, flag and back of green over focusing on line too much.

[Nard_S]

> @Barfolomew said:

.... Earlier in this thread someone said the long game is about dispersion and short game about distance control..... very interesting to ponder that and it coulda came from a guy who shoots in 90s or a pro but makes you think.... makes me want to focus more on accuracy with driver and more emphasis on dropping those wedge shots at range to front of green, flag and back of green over focusing on line too much.

 

FYI, best gross this year was 78, worst 87, I've played about 8 rounds so far in 2019 so I'm not even close to peak "game shape".

 

[North Butte]

> @Barfolomew said:

>Earlier in this thread someone said the long game is about dispersion and short game about distance control..... very interesting to ponder that and it coulda came from a guy who shoots in 90s or a pro but makes you think.... makes me want to focus more on accuracy with driver and more emphasis on dropping those wedge shots at range to front of green, flag and back of green over focusing on line too much.

 

That's more in the category of platitudes and motivational speeches. Not the same as actual advice about how to swing the club or how to play a shot.

[bladehunter]

> @smashdn said:

> Can you put that file into dropbox or some file sharing place? I'd love to see it and see the background math.

 

Lol. The answer to that is yes. But. Am I smart enough to do it ? Maybe. It was sent to me via drop box. So pm me your email and I’ll try to see what I maybe can do. Lol

[Nard_S]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @Barfolomew said:

> >Earlier in this thread someone said the long game is about dispersion and short game about distance control..... very interesting to ponder that and it coulda came from a guy who shoots in 90s or a pro but makes you think.... makes me want to focus more on accuracy with driver and more emphasis on dropping those wedge shots at range to front of green, flag and back of green over focusing on line too much.

>

> That's more in the category of platitudes and motivational speeches. Not the same as actual advice about how to swing the club or how to play a shot.

 

No it's really putting focus on what needs to be practiced and getting the most from effort.

[North Butte]

I know lots of guys in my usual group who are good at "coaching you up" to bounce back from bad holes, play hard when the team has a chance to win with a good finish, that kind of thing. It's a completely different discussion from how to swing or how to play certain shots. Heck, the best sport psychologist I've ever met was basically a 2-3 hcp at his very best. But he knows the mental game.

[davep043]

> @bladehunter said:

 

> I’m just telling you what I see with the sheet I’ve used. It takes into account proximity first then Make or miss 1st putt and then when you enter next putt it adjusts the previous putt for the amount of leave. Meaning it’s not final until it’s in the hole .

>

> I’m not sure what you’re trying to tell me. I get that strokes gained approach and putting are separate.

>

> I’ve entered shots into each sheet and watch the values change for each entry and then the total.

>

> My point was making the point that proximity matters both ways. The closer you hit it the less chance you have to “ gain strokes “ with putter. Opposite is true too. If you are hitting it wide and making 1 putts you’re strokes gained putting stat will be off the chart.

>

> I was just saying that those facts are never mentioned when people make those “ he won with ball striking “ claims. Simply because his strokes gained stat on the greens is mediocre. But those 4-7 foot putts he is making are just as or more pressure packed than the bombs and lags that the guy in 15th place with the leading strokes gained putting stat. This is just one of the holes in that line of stats.

 

The guy who wins has gained strokes on the entire field, over all, adding the influence of every part of the game. That's a given, that's why he wins. The Strokes Gained analysis, the entire system, attempts to identify the areas in which a player has performed better (or worse) than the field. If he hits it close all day, he gained the strokes with his approach shots. If he drove the ball really long and straight, he gained strokes with his driving, he made it easier to hit it close with a wedge, v. the guy who was 30 yards shorter and had to hit 7-iron. If your sheet includes only putting, or if you're trying to use one factor without considering the others, you're only getting a portion of the story.

 

I agree that the Strokes Gained hasn't really been explained well in telecasts, and many of the commentators might not understand the statistics that they're spouting.

[bladehunter]

> @davep043 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

>

> > I’m just telling you what I see with the sheet I’ve used. It takes into account proximity first then Make or miss 1st putt and then when you enter next putt it adjusts the previous putt for the amount of leave. Meaning it’s not final until it’s in the hole .

> >

> > I’m not sure what you’re trying to tell me. I get that strokes gained approach and putting are separate.

> >

> > I’ve entered shots into each sheet and watch the values change for each entry and then the total.

> >

> > My point was making the point that proximity matters both ways. The closer you hit it the less chance you have to “ gain strokes “ with putter. Opposite is true too. If you are hitting it wide and making 1 putts you’re strokes gained putting stat will be off the chart.

> >

> > I was just saying that those facts are never mentioned when people make those “ he won with ball striking “ claims. Simply because his strokes gained stat on the greens is mediocre. But those 4-7 foot putts he is making are just as or more pressure packed than the bombs and lags that the guy in 15th place with the leading strokes gained putting stat. This is just one of the holes in that line of stats.

>

> The guy who wins has gained strokes on the entire field, over all, adding the influence of every part of the game. That's a given, that's why he wins. The Strokes Gained analysis, the entire system, attempts to identify the areas in which a player has performed better (or worse) than the field. If he hits it close all day, he gained the strokes with his approach shots. If he drove the ball really long and straight, he gained strokes with his driving, he made it easier to hit it close with a wedge, v. the guy who was 30 yards shorter and had to hit 7-iron. If your sheet includes only putting, or if you're trying to use one factor without considering the others, you're only getting a portion of the story.

>

> I agree that the Strokes Gained hasn't really been explained well in telecasts, and many of the commentators might not understand the statistics that they're spouting.

 

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 ?

[North Butte]

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.

[davep043]

> @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.

 

[bladehunter]

> @"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.

[Nard_S]

So how do SG adherents accurately collect the data? Are folks lasering every shot and writing it down or loading an app? Do putts factor in grade? 10' below hole is way better than above, do you pace off putts and record it?. I have a hard enough time, doing counts on FIR, GIR and putts along with score. This seems real data heavy.

[bladehunter]

As far as “ trick or fool “ the stat. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the value of a 5 footer under the gun with the lead or chasing it is not accurately accounted for versus the 15 ft bomb somebody makes who’s T30 for the week. It’s not that he stat is tricked. It’s that they guy making the bomb gets a full shot credit for the shot and the 5 footer might see a 1/4 shot. So the end result stat for the week is really not worth much. ( in some instances ). It’s jusy not a perfect indicator of much of anything.

[North Butte]

> @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.

 

I think your "Player 1" example is trying to illustrate a case where a player literally never has to hit putts that aren't darned near tap-ins (by Tour standards). In that situation, any putting stats degenerate into simply saying he didn't miss any tap-ins or near tap-ins.

 

That sort of situation might conceivably happen for one round (although it's a stretch to imagine even Jack or Tiger in their prime hitting literally every single approach shot inside 8 feet) but can't possibly happen over a tournament or a season or a career.

 

So yes, it is in theory possible for a small sample size of putts to all be so short they don't test the player's putting ability.

 

But even when Rory or Tiger have won majors by some huge number of strokes, over the course of four rounds they still have many putts from outside of 10 feet and quite a few from outside of 20 or 30. So there's always plenty of information available for computing a meaningful Strokes Gained: Putting statistic (in the real world, over more than a few holes or a single round).

 

Golf is far too variable to present a total partition of first-putt distances like your Player 1 and Player 2. There's never a tournament (much less than a season or a career) when a player literally never hits it inside 10 feet or a player never hits it outside 30 feet.

 

I suspect you're talking about some "stat" concerning a few holes or maybe one round that some talking head on TV spouts off. As Dave says, they are just doing what sports commentators always do. Capitalizing on small, chance patterns and hyping them up into something supposedly insightful. Like the classic "This player is 3 for 7 with the bases loaded over his 8-year career" type of baseball "stat".

[bladehunter]

> @"North Butte" 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.

>

> I think your "Player 1" example is trying to illustrate a case where a player literally never has to hit putts that aren't darned near tap-ins (by Tour standards). In that situation, any putting stats degenerate into simply saying he didn't miss any tap-ins or near tap-ins.

>

> That sort of situation might conceivably happen for one round (although it's a stretch to imagine even Jack or Tiger in their prime hitting literally every single approach shot inside 8 feet) but can't possibly happen over a tournament or a season or a career.

>

> So yes, it is in theory possible for a small sample size of putts to all be so short they don't test the player's putting ability.

>

> But even when Rory or Tiger have won majors by some huge number of strokes, over the course of four rounds they still have many putts from outside of 10 feet and quite a few from outside of 20 or 30. So there's always plenty of information available for computing a meaningful Strokes Gained: Putting statistic (in the real world, over more than a few holes or a single round).

>

> Golf is far too variable to present a total partition of first-putt distances like your Player 1 and Player 2. There's never a tournament (much less than a season or a career) when a player literally never hits it inside 10 feet or a player never hits it outside 30 feet.

>

> I suspect you're talking about some "stat" concerning a few holes or maybe one round that some talking head on TV spouts off. As Dave says, they are just doing what sports commentators always do. Capitalizing on small, chance patterns and hyping them up into something supposedly insightful. Like the classic "This player is 3 for 7 with the bases loaded over his 8-year career" type of baseball "stat".

 

Yep. Exactly correct. Just wish that folks here wouldn’t take those hot takes and declare them useful or much less worth starting a thread to exclaim that “ Rory won with superior ballstriking” when a blind man could see that he won because his putter woke up.

 

The stat might be useful for looking at a whole season. But I don’t believe it should ever be mentioned for a weeks work.

 

 

[davep043]

> @bladehunter said:

 

> The stat might be useful for looking at a whole season. But I don’t believe it should ever be mentioned for a weeks work.

Without that, what would the talking heads talk about?

 

[North Butte]

> @Nard_S said:

> So how do SG adherents accurately collect the data? Are folks lasering every shot and writing it down or loading an app? Do putts factor in grade? 10' below hole is way better than above, do you pace off putts and record it?. I have a hard enough time, doing counts on FIR, GIR and putts along with score. This seems real data heavy.

 

Are you asking about Strokes Gained computed on the PGA Tour? Yes, they measure every putt to the nearest inch and every other shot to the nearest fraction of a yard. And no it does not account for slope and so forth. Which is one of the many reasons the stats are only meaningful averaged over a large enough sample (few hundred putts or several hundred full shots, minimum).

 

Are you asking about collecting Strokes Gained stats on ones own rounds? Yes you laser (ideally) or pace off or use GPS to get the distance to the hole for non-putt. And you either pace off or estimate somehow the length of your first putt on each green. And again, the methodology is a large-sample one that does not attempt to account for shot-to-shot details of slope and so forth.

 

And yes, it is a fair amount of work. When I've done it in my own game, not a problem because I have a good memory for numbers. No need to write anything down during the round and I already laser most my full shots anyway. Also, keep in mind that the numbers do not have to be especially precise (other than for putts inside 10-15 feet where the exact distance matters a lot). Knowing that an iron shot was "140 from the fairway" is fine, there's no benefit to knowing it was "142 from the left edge". And even in the short game I just eyeball it. I can pretty well tell a 30-yard chip from a 20-yard one. If it's like 60 yards I'll laser it.

 

So for a given round, that evening at home, I'll be entering numbers like this into Golfmetrics:

 

340 Tee

150 Fairway

25 Rough

18 Green

2 Green

 

330 Tee

180 Obstructed

120 Fairway

25 Green

1 Green

 

490 Tee

270 Fairway

90 Fairway

20 Green

 

135 Tee

15 Sand

8 Green

2 Green

 

And so forth for the other 14 holes. The tee shot distances I just use numbers from the yardage plate on the tee box (accepting that they will occasionally be misleading because of a dogleg I can cut or whatever) and round off to nearest 10 yards. The Fairway/Rough/Sand/Obstructed full shots I get from the laser (although occasionally, being on my home course I know without bothering to shoot it) and round off to nearest 10 yards. Shots around the green I eyeball and usually try to guess to the nearest 5 yards. Putt lengths I either eyeball or pace off and round to nearest 5 feet outside of 20 and try to estimate it to the nearest foot inside 20 feet.

[bladehunter]

> @davep043 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

>

> > The stat might be useful for looking at a whole season. But I don’t believe it should ever be mentioned for a weeks work.

> Without that, what would the talking heads talk about?

>

 

Lol. Very true. And I get that. But ....

 

It rounds me to my true point and it’s that I tried it. Used it for a long while on myself and all it did was constantly say “ you suck “ at putting. Very much the opposite of proper self talk. I also found that as a running Talley it was incredibly hard to ever get it pointed back in a good direction. I sat at + 4.5 shots a round lost in the greens for 6 months ( roughly up and down ). In that time I cut 3 puts down to an average of just 1 a round , and had an average number of putts just at 30 ( not good I know I ) . What it did was illustrate how disproportionately good I hit it in that period compared to how many 1 putts I had. Sure it showed that putting was my Achilles. But. I didn’t need the stat to tell me that. In fact it became a self fulfilling prophecy.... it said I sucked long enough that I started pressing and 3 putting again. So i eventually stopped using it. My best guess is that I’d have to get to an average of 25-26 putts a round to get that stat to a positive number.

 

I suppose if a person wanted to use it for years and not really look at it unless a change was noticed in score. Maybe. I just found it to be more harmful than goood. And sure I’ll concede that is my issue. But I found my self subtracting those 4.5 shots from each round total and beating myself up. As in “ hey dummy. If you could putt you’d have shot 70 instead of 74”. It was like having captain obvious in your back pocket.