Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm kinda surprised by that. I'm a low single digit player and it's really hard to shave strokes off the game the lower you are. And yet I still see a need to collect the data and figure out my next area of improvement. For example, I've really worked hard over the last year or so at improving my iron accuracy. Eventhough I've plateaued a bit on GIR, I've steadily improved my approach proximity from about 53 to 42 feet and it's had a meaningful impact on my scoring. My next target area is chipping proximity. Currently at about 14 ft and will target 8ft. So at a 15, I'd still think
  2. My example is probably less useful on full long iron shots, but I find it really useful in practicing my short game and putting. If the benchmark for 25 yd chip shots is 10 ft, for example, then when I practice, I generally try to see how many times I can chip to within that standard. If I can't get most of my practice shots inside that circle, from all kinds of angles and lies, then I know I had a bad practice session and need to keep working on it. If I get them consistently inside that circle, then I know I had a good practice session and try to lock in those feels and movements. Same goes
  3. As you indicated, the distances are simply used to bracket results and allow a subjective assessment of whether a shot was good from a particular distance. The resulting proximity really carries the weight of that assessment with the starting distance being secondary. But that starting distance could be a rough estimate and still be just as useful instead of being so precisely measured with shot tracking hardware. As I said before, the actual total distance travelled for each shot doesn't appear to be useful in any other way, particularly for club selection. Total distance is affec
  4. Question for those who are using strokes gained provided by Shot Scope or others . When the app tells you that you are losing 2 strokes from 100-150 yards, what do you do with that information? How do you drill down to find the exact problem area and how do you go about improving it? When I use stats like approach proximity or chip proximity, I can visualize that during play and during a practice session. I can't visualize strokes gained. To me, if I am losing strokes in that range, I would want to know that its because my approach proximity with my 9 iron, for example, is 45 ft a
  5. Firstly, Arccos may be easy, but that comes at a cost. $120/yr plus hardware is starting to get up there and isn't a screaming value to me. I get pretty much everything I need for a heck of a lot less, but as you said, you just have to get used to touching your phone often to enter the data. Manual entry for me is no big deal, but for others, I can understand how it might be distracting. Secondly, I agree with you that basic stats like FIR, GIR, etc. are not that good. I track stats like approach proximity, chip proximity, lag putt proximity, strokes gained putting, 'acceptable' t
  6. I guess each person's tolerance to having a phone near them is different. I have my phone in the drawer of my Clicgear along with my range finder. I enter the data into my app when it is convenient for me, usually on the next tee or walking down the fairway, so I'm not tied to the phone to capture data exactly where I'm standing. I'm so used to it now that I don't even think about it and it doesn't interfere with my round in the slightest. For the incremental $100/yr + hardware costs, the automation of data collection is just not worth it to me. I'm more of a DIY kind of guy anyway. And even w
  7. For all this cost and hassle, what are you really getting out of Arccos, Shotscope, etc. that you can't get out of simpler apps for significantly less cost. Lots of apps for $20-30/yr that will tell you a good chunk of what you need to know to improve your game. Is the incremental cost of 'automation' in these higher cost solutions really worth it?
  8. So what is the whole system costing you? Both initial hardware purchase and ongoing subscription.
  9. Agree that everyone can improve with some training and effort. Perhaps the phrase should have read, "but may be beyond the capability of the high handicapper at this point in their development." Just trying to say that the high handicapper needs to have appropriate goals and then subsequently adjust those goals as they get better.
  10. Yes, I agree that lag putting is a unique skill and requires a different mindset and technical skillset. To be good at lag putting you have to practice lag putting skills. Being a great short range putter doesn't fix lag putting issues. Those are different putting skills. Regarding ranges of importance, I think its different for each level of golfer and one size does not fit all. In the Stickney article I posted, he states: One-putting more often from the statistical distances that makes sense to your level of play. Eliminating three putts from the statistical distances
  11. It does disagree with what you wrote. You said equal weight on all putts and the article indicate an emphasis for line on short putts and an emphasis on weight for long ones. That's not equal.
  12. Another article that doesn't agree with this approach https://www.golfwrx.com/547546/line-vs-speed-whats-really-more-important-in-putting/
  13. Nobody is ignoring break. Just prioritzing distance control.
  14. But does that mindset apply to the 90s shooter? The question in the OP is whether shortening the distance (from the often suggested 20 to 25ft) where distance control becomes the overriding concern for those high handicap golfers? They dont seem to be able to balance the variables well enough to avoid three putting more than they one putt.
  • Create New...