MD/VA/DC Golfers - Ten Seconds or Less

[dcmidnight]

Did they provide 2-putt rate at every GIR distance?

 

I guess its possible that whatever level of golfer they measured is not hitting 80 yard second shots into many Par 4s? Otherwise there is zero chance I believe that. Give someone a half wedge or a 5 iron and I cant imagine one golfer that would hit more GIR with the 5 iron then the half wedge.

 

Its the only thing I can think of. Otherwise exactly none of what they are saying makes sense.

[therealsneek]

 

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.

 

 

This is my favorite part of the article.

 

So, they are telling me that I am better off hitting a 7-iron from 175 than hitting a smooth sand wedge from 100? Get the F outta here.

 

I think City is on to something. They chose the stat putts per GIR because it allowed them to make a conclusion that contradicts normal thinking about approach distances.

[Puppetmaster]

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.

 

Because all we need now for pace of play, and growing the game, is for higher handicap golfers to start laying up to 175 yards on 350 yard par 4s. Yes please!

[JJCOOP7]

So do you think there is correlation b/t a gir from 150-200 and less putts bc that's also showing a correlation b/t the better player who gets gir from 150-200 and their ability to also be a better putter?

 

Edit- just saw Fabb's post about better players being better putters

[baddomes]

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.

 

Why can't 10 handicappers play 200 yard par 3s?

 

Why can't scratch golfers play 100 yard par 3s?

[JJCOOP7]

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.

 

Why can't 10 handicappers play 200 yard par 3s?

 

Why can't scratch golfers play 100 yard par 3s?

 

As we learned from City yesterday. Scratch guys do play from 100 at RR

[eagle1997]

Otherwise exactly none of what they are saying makes sense.

 

it doesn't.

 

here's this little gem:

 

"On par 5s, approaches from inside 100 yards accounted for the most two-putts, but it's notable that more birdie putts (counted as one-putts in our study) came from the 150-200 range."

 

so therefore we should layup to 150 on par 5s vs 125 or 100? GTFO

[Puppetmaster]

To step off their throat for a bit, statistical analysis is hard, especially when it concerns sample data with very heterogeneous groups/subjects. It's a good effort, but as City pointed out, there are way too many fundamental errors in interpreting the data.

[Boogs2]

You know what's a great ball, the Bstone e6.

 

[FAbb]

To step off their throat for a bit, statistical analysis is hard, especially when it concerns sample data with very heterogeneous groups/subjects. It's a good effort, but as City pointed out, there are way too many fundamental errors in interpreting the data.

 

To step right back on their throat for a bit, it doesn't have to be so heterogeneous.

 

They've got data binned out by handicap level in other areas of the article. Take those putts/GIR charts and bin them out so that you've got one for each handicap range. That would certainly bring out some more truthful information.

[therealsneek]

You know what's a great ball, the Bstone e6.

 

 

I will also endorse the e6. I have been using them all winter.

[dcmidnight]

Its the same reason they would not release their ball testing data. They got the fantastical headline grabbing result they wanted and stuck by that.

[TheCityGame]

To step off their throat for a bit, statistical analysis is hard, especially when it concerns sample data with very heterogeneous groups/subjects. It's a good effort, but as City pointed out, there are way too many fundamental errors in interpreting the data.

 

To step right back on their throat for a bit, it doesn't have to be so heterogeneous.

 

They've got data binned out by handicap level in other areas of the article. Take those putts/GIR charts and bin them out so that you've got one for each handicap range. That would certainly bring out some more truthful information.

Exactly.

 

Show me the same putting chart by distance for each handicap level. One more "by" statement in SAS. One more "select" in SQL (or whatever. I don't use SQL).

 

I actually sent such a comment in and it never showed. Don't know if I did it wrong or if it's being moderated. One other guy basically said the same thing. His name was Fred Dill.

 

j/k

[JJCOOP7]

On this wavelength.

 

GTT

 

You have to lay up on a par 5... what distance/ club do you want in for your third shot?

[Puppetmaster]

I was trying to play good cop is all.

 

Fine, screw em!

[baddomes]

GTT:

 

I'm going anywhere between 85-110. If I can have either the 54 or 58 in my hands, full shot or not, I'm cool.

[dcmidnight]

GTT:

 

Not clear if its layup based on hazard or if just being forced to layup for distance. Either way I'm hittng it as close as I can with a 3w/5w depending on potential trouble. Unlike apparently a majority of golfers, I'm much better off with a 50 yard shot than a 150 yard shot.

[SullGolf]

Rule of thumb: if someone puts a picture as the background for a chart, they can't be trusted. IMO this graph is more disqualifying than the putt-per-GIR numbers you guys are ranting about.

[Puppetmaster]

On this wavelength.

 

GTT

 

You have to lay up on a par 5... what distance/ club do you want in for your third shot?

 

Unreachable second shot on a par 5, 3W in hand? My distance will be however far the hazard drop area is from the green.

[JJCOOP7]

GTT:

 

Not clear if its layup based on hazard or if just being forced to layup for distance. Either way I'm hittng it as close as I can with a 3w/5w depending on potential trouble. Unlike apparently a majority of golfers, I'm much better off with a 50 yard shot than a 150 yard shot.

 

Gators and Sharks

 

 

[vtnerf]

Rule of thumb: if someone puts a picture as the background for a chart, they can't be trusted. IMO this graph is more disqualifying than the putt-per-GIR numbers you guys are ranting about.

That's the one that I was referencing. I could have created nearly every other chart in there, without their data. But that one...just seems like someone got a program for Christmas and just figured out how to use it. Kinda like a SnapChat filter for them.

[Puppetmaster]

GTT:

 

Not clear if its layup based on hazard or if just being forced to layup for distance. Either way I'm hittng it as close as I can with a 3w/5w depending on potential trouble. Unlike apparently a majority of golfers, I'm much better off with a 50 yard shot than a 150 yard shot.

 

Gators and Sharks

 

 

 

Sharks with lasers.

[FAbb]

GTT:

 

Not clear if its layup based on hazard or if just being forced to layup for distance. Either way I'm hittng it as close as I can with a 3w/5w depending on potential trouble. Unlike apparently a majority of golfers, I'm much better off with a 50 yard shot than a 150 yard shot.

 

 

[dcmidnight]

Rule of thumb: if someone puts a picture as the background for a chart, they can't be trusted. IMO this graph is more disqualifying than the putt-per-GIR numbers you guys are ranting about.

That's the one that I was referencing. I could have created nearly every other chart in there, without their data. But that one...just seems like someone got a program for Christmas and just figured out how to use it. Kinda like a SnapChat filter for them.

 

Exactly.

 

Reminds of of the first time someone learns how to build a pivot table and just starts comparing a bunch of nonsensical data - just because you can.

[SullGolf]

Rule of thumb: if someone puts a picture as the background for a chart, they can't be trusted. IMO this graph is more disqualifying than the putt-per-GIR numbers you guys are ranting about.

That's the one that I was referencing. I could have created nearly every other chart in there, without their data. But that one...just seems like someone got a program for Christmas and just figured out how to use it. Kinda like a SnapChat filter for them.

 

That's a funny thought, but incorrect. Want to know why I know it's incorrect? Because look at this s***! Go to Excel, click "Recommend Chart", and the first two options are the right ones. Bam. Problem solved. You have to actively try to make a chart that stupid. Though to be mildly fair, the pie chart would be more dumb than the line chart.

[thechief16]

On this wavelength.

 

GTT

 

You have to lay up on a par 5... what distance/ club do you want in for your third shot?

 

If you made me choose, 100 on the button. Nice stock GW.

 

But I'm much more on DC's wavelength. Get me as close as I can. The closer I am, the better chance I have of knocking it inside 5 feet.

[FAbb]

GTT : Ideally, I can get myself down far enough to have some kind of less than full 56 in. I won't take on unnecessary risk to get there anymore though. I'll hang back further if I feel like I need to, in order to take pressure off the layup shot.

[TheCityGame]

I sent that article to a guy at work who does a lot of the stuff I do. Like 2 minutes later he wrote me back. . .

 

"For one, they need to do that part by handicap – the better golfers are the ones hitting the greens from 150-200 and they are the better putters.

 

Something else they don’t mention – I would think greens that can be hit from farther out might be easier to putt – slower, less hilly? I have nothing to support this theory – and it might only apply to worse golfers if any?"

[SullGolf]

For the record, I also don't really like that recommend bar chart either. I don't like charts that start their axis somewhere other than 0. The difference between 2.08 and 2.15 is a 3.3% increase, but starting the axis at 2.04 makes it look huge.

[vtnerf]

For the record, I also don't really like that recommend bar chart either. I don't like charts that start their axis somewhere other than 0. The difference between 2.08 and 2.15 is a 3.3% increase, but starting the axis at 2.04 makes it look huge.

So, Sully, you're saying the chart is a chode?