MD/VA/DC Golfers - Ten Seconds or Less

[dagoose383]

Putting a feeler out. Looking to play late morning/mid day on Sunday. Walking.

 

Anybody else looking to play?

[misplacedtexan83]

Putting a feeler out. Looking to play late morning/mid day on Sunday. Walking.

 

Anybody else looking to play?

 

Where abouts?

[Golfer827]

Putting a feeler out. Looking to play late morning/mid day on Sunday. Walking.

 

Anybody else looking to play?

 

Where abouts?

 

I know David was asking as well earlier in the topic. He was saying LB, Northwest or Worthington.

 

However, if you want a third wheel, give a location and I'll see if it's feasible.

[gregh729]

who actually has gone under par for 18 before?

 

fabb - yes

pq - yes

me - yes

stix - yes

jj - yes

halcyan - yes

dt - yes

2more - yes

 

is this right?

 

71 at Northwest in 1983 from the whites. First year out of college, before I got married. Played 3-4 times a week and softball 3 times a week. My second best is a 73 at Redgate the same year. Got married in 84, daughter born in 87, son in 90. Haven't been close since.

[dagoose383]

UMD was $27 to walk? Course was decent?

 

Never played there, that'd probably be the furthest reach of my travels.

 

I feel like temperature wise it may be one of those "comfortable to walk, a little cool for riding" type of days if the forecast stays cloudy and 61*

[TheCityGame]

UMD was $27 to walk? Course was decent?

Yes and yes. We played after 1 though, I don't know if that was a late day rate.

 

Dormant bermuda, which looks funky but is totally playable.

[TheCityGame]

Domes, you might be the only guy here who could pull this off. . .

 

http://www.kangolstore.com/headwear/shape/brims/knit-chain-casual.html

[gregh729]

OK, I just a half hour scrolling through the Urban Dictionary. Holy smokes, that was hilarious! I almost fell out of my chair laughing

 

I love one of the "chode" definitions.

when your p**** can touch all sides of a Tuna can without touching the bottom.

 

My oh my, look what he is doing with that Starkist can! He has a chode!

 

#chode #chode-d!ck #chodeee #a fat p**** #incredible girth

[TheCityGame]

I have 3 definitions at Urban Dictionary.

[therealsneek]

I have 3 definitions at Urban Dictionary.

 

Ok, I am going to need more details on this.

[TheCityGame]

I have 3 definitions at Urban Dictionary.

 

Ok, I am going to need more details on this.

http://www.urbandict...author=FredDill

 

They're not that funny. Two are repeats. I definitely submitted more back then, but not all got accepted.

 

The "infectious smile" was something I either heard or came up with YEARS ago. Can't remember where Pube Loofah came from, my head or elsewhere.

 

The name Fred Dill goes WAY back. It was the name of a janitor back in grade school that we thought was a funny name. We'd (HS friends, etc) always say "Fred Dill" when you needed to give a name out for whatever reason, or try to work it in in class in high school. I still use it if I need to sign up for some dumb web site. Like UD.

 

Also, keep in mind, that was just contributing to the lexicon. I wasn't even necessarily trying to be funny. Just adding stuff to the dictionary.

[gregh729]

I have 3 definitions at Urban Dictionary.

 

Ok, I am going to need more details on this.

http://www.urbandict...author=FredDill

 

They're not that funny. Two are repeats. I definitely submitted more back then, but not all got accepted.

 

The "infectious smile" was something I either heard or came up with YEARS ago. Can't remember where Pube Loofah came from, my head or elsewhere.

 

The name Fred Dill goes WAY back. It was the name of a janitor back in grade school that we thought was a funny name. We'd (HS friends, etc) always say "Fred Dill" when you needed to give a name out for whatever reason, or try to work it in in class in high school. I still use it if I need to sign up for some dumb web site. Like UD.

 

Also, keep in mind, that was just contributing to the lexicon. I wasn't even necessarily trying to be funny. Just adding stuff to the dictionary.

 

Pube Loofah is a great rock band name

[vtnerf]

MGS just posted some charts dissecting putting info from Arccos. 50 million shots from Arccos.

Brings a few questions to mind. Did the users of Arccos understand how their recorded data would be mined? Did they sign off on this? How accurate is the data? How were "gimmees" handled? Were all of these rounds proper and during the handicap season?

 

And then the charts. I bet I could have created something darn close (outside of the regional chart and one or two others) without seeing the 50 million. Does this info really shock anyone? I thought this was fairly well known info...kinda like "duh."

[FAbb]

MGS just posted some charts dissecting putting info from Arccos. 50 million shots from Arccos.

Brings a few questions to mind. Did the users of Arccos understand how their recorded data would be mined? Did they sign off on this? How accurate is the data? How were "gimmees" handled? Were all of these rounds proper and during the handicap season?

 

And then the charts. I bet I could have created something darn close (outside of the regional chart and one or two others) without seeing the 50 million. Does this info really shock anyone? I thought this was fairly well known info...kinda like "duh."

 

What garbage. One of their main takeaways is that you should lay back to 150-200 yards out because the putts/GIR are .02-.03 lower than with shorter approaches. Talk about losing site of the forest for the trees.

 

0/10. Would not bang.

[Puppetmaster]

Completely unrelated to the discussion at hand, but FYI - FI Premiere left, TW15 right. So yes, they are made on the same Free platform.

 

[dcmidnight]

Have not seen the charts because MGS is blocked here but given their past "tests" I am guessing Fabb's review is right on point.

 

If they are making conclusions at all based on putt distance - its a joke. Commercial GPS is only so good. And when you're talking about measuring putts in feet - unless you go back and manually correct each one - its idiotic. A 15 foot putt - plus or minus 3 yards - is a huge margin for error. Now if you are talking about a 250 yard drive, it doesnt matter as much. But measuring putts in feet like this is just stupid.

[TheCityGame]

There is some DUMB sh1t in that article.

 

The +5-1 are the "best" putters, but not the "most consistent" because they don't 2-putt as often as the 1-4 group. What in sh1t fire is he talking about?

 

"The data suggests that while it’s true the lowest handicap group of players covered in this study (+5 through 1 or “Scratch or Better”) are indeed the best putters, they aren’t the most consistent. When considering two-putt percentage, our group of 1-4 handicap players (for the sake of this study, let’s call them low single digit) are the most consistent. Our Low Single Digit group two-putts 68 percent of greens as compared to our Scratch or Better group, which two-putts only 64 percent of greens."

 

Forget about that. The thing that Abb was saying. . .look at this idea of a smaller percentage of 3-putts from hitting greens from 150-200? There's something a little subtle going on here, but I deal with the analog of it all the time in cancer statistics. . .

 

1) It's not "handicap weighted". The people hitting greens from 150-200 are the people who are GOOD AT GOLF.

 

2) Even if it WAS handicap weighted, it would ignore the idea that maybe SHORTER holes have more difficult greens.

 

But, really, I think you can totally ignore (2). (1) is such a problem that it dominates this issue. Let me explain it this way : say we only have 2 golfers, a scratch and an 18. Let's say we want to look at 100 examples of each distance. From 100 yards, we have 40 times the 18 capper hit the green, and 60 times the scratch golfer hit the green.

 

From 175 yards, we're going to have 5 times the bogey golfer hit the green and 95 times the scratch golfer hit the green.

 

All this says is that the scratch golfer is better at putting after hitting a green from 150-200 yards than the bogey golfer is at putting after hitting the green from 100 yards.

 

I GUARAN-F'N-TEE this is the reason. I have seen this mistake made a billion times.

[Puppetmaster]

Never found that site to be worth much in the past, although the driver CG thing they had a couple years back was interesting.

[Puppetmaster]

I GUARAN-F'N-TEE this is the reason. I have seen this mistake made a billion times.

 

You tell em Stat-man. This is why statistics in the wrong hands (usually media) can do more harm than good.

[dcmidnight]

I GUARAN-F'N-TEE this is the reason. I have seen this mistake made a billion times.

 

You tell em Stat-man. This is why statistics in the wrong hands (usually media) can do more harm than good.

 

Their lack of data consistency and "openness" is why I'll maintain that the whole Ksig test might have been bogus to begin with. When they wouldn't release the shot data information it was a giant red flag. If they actually took say 2 great shots from a scratch and compared it to 10 average shots from a 15 handicap - that would obviously be bogus. Might be an extreme example but when any site wont show how they arrived at their results - to me it invalidates any major claims they are trying to make.

[therealsneek]

Yeah, that article is garbage.

 

They focus on putts after a GIR and how it was lower from 150-200 yards than from 100-150 yards and <100 yards. They are implying (or I guess flat out saying) that people hit it closer to the hole from 150-200 yards than from 100-150 yards or <100 yards because the 150-200 range allows for a full swing. I don't believe that at all.

[FAbb]

It's really kind of embarrassing, honestly. The whole article is just full of holes. A turrible excuse to just show a bunch of bar graphs that don't amount to anything meaningful.

 

City makes an excellent point.

 

Back to one of their two "Key Strategies"

 

Manage your approach distances. Closer to the hole isn't always better. Shots from 150-200 yards produce the highest rate of one-putts and the lowest rate of three-putts. For most, a full swing with a middle iron will produce better results than a half swing with a wedge.

 

Um, wut? They've jumped from their bogus analysis of putts/GIR from various distances, to saying that you're actually going to hit it closer from 150-200 than from half wedge distance? Nonsense. Pure nonsense.

[dcmidnight]

It's really kind of embarrassing, honestly. The whole article is just full of holes. A turrible excuse to just show a bunch of bar graphs that don't amount to anything meaningful.

 

City makes an excellent point.

 

Back to one of their two "Key Strategies"

 

Manage your approach distances. Closer to the hole isn't always better. Shots from 150-200 yards produce the highest rate of one-putts and the lowest rate of three-putts. For most, a full swing with a middle iron will produce better results than a half swing with a wedge.

 

Um, wut? They've jumped from their bogus analysis of putts/GIR from various distances, to saying that you're actually going to hit it closer from 150-200 than from half wedge distance? Nonsense. Pure nonsense.

 

So they are saying "shots" from 150-200 - are they saying that is GIRs from that distance - result in the most one putts?

 

Because isnt it likely that a missed GIR results in a close chip which results in a one putt?

 

If they are saying that shots from 150-200 produced "the most one putts in GIR" then that strikes me as pure nonsense.

[JJCOOP7]

I read it as you did D.C. Shots from 150-200 produce most 1 putts bc you miss green. Lol

[TheCityGame]

It's really kind of embarrassing, honestly. The whole article is just full of holes. A turrible excuse to just show a bunch of bar graphs that don't amount to anything meaningful.

 

City makes an excellent point.

 

Back to one of their two "Key Strategies"

 

Manage your approach distances. Closer to the hole isn't always better. Shots from 150-200 yards produce the highest rate of one-putts and the lowest rate of three-putts. For most, a full swing with a middle iron will produce better results than a half swing with a wedge.

 

Um, wut? They've jumped from their bogus analysis of putts/GIR from various distances, to saying that you're actually going to hit it closer from 150-200 than from half wedge distance? Nonsense. Pure nonsense.

 

So they are saying "shots" from 150-200 - are they saying that is GIRs from that distance - result in the most one putts?

 

Because isnt it likely that a missed GIR results in a close chip which results in a one putt?

 

If they are saying that shots from 150-200 produced "the most one putts in GIR" then that strikes me as pure nonsense.

Quote, "Overall, the lowest number of putts (2.12) following a Green in Regulation come from the 150-200 yard range."

 

So, no JJ. That's NOT what they're saying.

 

The thing Fabb said, "Shots from 150-200 yards produce the highest rate of one-putts and the lowest rate of three-putts.".

 

Yes, because of the two things I said.

 

"For most, a full swing with a middle iron will produce better results than a half swing with a wedge."

 

No. Not even close. Not for any level of golfer.

[FAbb]

It's only talking about putts when a user hit the GIR.

 

City's post was really fantastic at pulling the biggest fallacy out of the whole article. The putting stats in that distance range are so much more heavily influenced by the performance of better golfers.

 

It's just disheartening to see stuff like that even get posted. You're publishing information that is downright wrong, and most people are going to read it and trust it.

[Puppetmaster]

Back to one of their two "Key Strategies"

 

Manage your approach distances. Closer to the hole isn't always better. Shots from 150-200 yards produce the highest rate of one-putts and the lowest rate of three-putts. For most, a full swing with a middle iron will produce better results than a half swing with a wedge.

 

 

Ok, now you've made me not even bother to look it up. I was slightly curious before, now I just don't care. That's just going to make me dumber for having read it.

 

Amateurs aside, look at the Tour averages in proximity from the varying distances. How can they say 150-200 is the optimal distance?

 

Actually, this is more like:

 

[eagle1997]

city's probably played the ksig more than anyone on here. he's also played proV1, proV1x, various bstones, and any other 'tour' ball he can get his grubby little hands on. he's been adamant that all urethane balls are the same to guys like us.

 

and yet... i *think* he now prefers a ksig. coincidence? :)

[SullGolf]

The MGS data analysis always seems half-assed to me. It's what happens if you take data analysis seriously, but not professional, if that makes sense. On the one hand, it's nice to see some hard numbers versus only seeing marketing fluff that was delivered to the write straight from the manufacturer. On the other hand, having a 15 handicap take 10-15 swings with each club and giving an average isn't a very good indication of which club is better. It's mostly just going to reflect their swing flaws and inconsistency.

 

99% of people probably don't care and would be turned off by seeing a standard deviation or something else. Maybe they could hide it somewhere at the bottom of an article.

[TheCityGame]

Just occured to me the same goes for handicap level vs. putting.

 

If par 3 putting performance is similar between scratch and 10.0 index golfers, it's because scratch golfers are playing 200 yard par 3s vs 150 yard par 3's.

 

You can't look at the two things separately.