Who are the strategists that the Tour guys use?

[bladehunter]

Just now, ThinkingPlus said:

Well some parts might have been less generally known or acknowledged.  Basically before the modern stats based strategies were publicized, fairways were over valued and proximity to the hole was under valued.  That is pretty much the zeroth order basics.  I have never seen anyone acknowledge those value judgements until the last 10 - 15 years.  It was always put the ball in the fairway to make the best score on every hole or put the ball on the green anywhere rather considering a chip or bunker might be a better spot than a much longer putt.

Right and that maybe my disconnect since I didn’t play then.  I read all i can on it , and think “ who doesn’t know that “?    Im just waiting for the aha info.  

[ThinkingPlus]

10 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Right and that maybe my disconnect since I didn’t play then.  I read all i can on it , and think “ who doesn’t know that “?    Im just waiting for the aha info.  

Many "obvious" truths only become apparent in retrospect or, old dogmas have a difficult time learning new tricks.

[bladehunter]

14 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Many "obvious" truths only become apparent in retrospect or, old dogmas have a difficult time learning new tricks.

Sure. That’s why I said trial and error earlier.  Which would means looking back to dictate future choice. 
Are you saying this will prevent the “ error “ aspect ? 
 

I guess the only way I’ll know is to pay up and try the app/system  for the summer .   Then post a full review here.  Yes ?  That will settle it.   Here’s to hoping it shows this dog a new trick.  
 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by bladehunter

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Sure. That’s why I said trial and error earlier.  Which would means looking back to dictate future choice. 
Are you saying this will prevent the “ error “ aspect ? 
 

I guess the only way I’ll know is to pay up and try the app/system  for the summer .   Then post a full review here.  Yes ?  That will settle it.   Here’s to hoping it shows this dog a new trick.  
 

 

 

I'm not necessarily advocating DECADE.  I agree with you that given the knowledge we have today most anyone can come up with pretty good hole strategies based on self-knowledge of strengths/weaknesses and overlaying shot tendencies on a sat map.  From what little I have seen, DECADE just gives you the strokes comparison between strategies so you get quantitative assessment in addition to the qualitative assessment you could do on your own.  It probably is a bit more accurate on initial assessment avoiding some T & E.

[kelpie]

Decade is an amazing tool, but you have to have a certain mind for numbers to max it out. Fawcett, from what I've heard, is an insanely smart guy with a mind for numbers like nobody's business. The system works for him and the players that really get the most out of it also have that mindset. They love numbers, play the odds, understand probability. For the more simple user, just understanding your shot pattern, tendencies and pin positions are important. What I've heard is that some of the players can't/don't want to understand the process, but the caddies can and will. So, they help the player understand what they are supposed to do. One player I met at LA this year just didn't have the mind for the numbers, but his dad did. So, dad was plotting dots and colors on his son's yardage book before each round. If you understand how to count cards (as Scott apparently does) then you'll fit in quickly. What's really cool about the whole Decade thing and Mark Brodie, is that more and more players are aware of shot patterns, misses and how to break down a golf course. Kudos to those guys! 

[canonlbp430]

46 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Sure. That’s why I said trial and error earlier.  Which would means looking back to dictate future choice. 
Are you saying this will prevent the “ error “ aspect ? 
 

I guess the only way I’ll know is to pay up and try the app/system  for the summer .   Then post a full review here.  Yes ?  That will settle it.   Here’s to hoping it shows this dog a new trick.  
 

 

 

 Honestly if you know someone that has a log in and you can watch some of the videos to start that would probably be enough to learn about the statistics of the system. It boils down to about 5 really good videos that explain the statistics side of scoring lower, putting, tee shots, approach shots etc. You could apply the system without being a member. Most of the ongoing member benefits are the statistics tracking and custom yardage books.

[Krt22]

38 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I'm not necessarily advocating DECADE.  I agree with you that given the knowledge we have today most anyone can come up with pretty good hole strategies based on self-knowledge of strengths/weaknesses and overlaying shot tendencies on a sat map.  From what little I have seen, DECADE just gives you the strokes comparison between strategies so you get quantitative assessment in addition to the qualitative assessment you could do on your own.  It probably is a bit more accurate on initial assessment avoiding some T & E.

It's a bit alarming how many folks in here love to use singular anecdotes to try to disprove quantitative data. I really don't understand the issue some folks have it.

[bladehunter]

55 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

It's a bit alarming how many folks in here love to use singular anecdotes to try to disprove quantitative data. I really don't understand the issue some folks have it.

Do you use it ?

 

I don’t think anyone is trying to disprove any data.  In fact it’s been repeatedly asked for .  What would be helpful is seeing data from users.  

Edited May 5, 2021 by bladehunter

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Well some parts might have been less generally known or acknowledged.  Basically before the modern stats based strategies were publicized, fairways were over valued and proximity to the hole was under valued.  That is pretty much the zeroth order basics.  I have never seen anyone acknowledge those value judgements until the last 10 - 15 years.  It was always put the ball in the fairway to make the best score on every hole or put the ball on the green anywhere rather considering a chip or bunker might be a better spot than a much longer putt.

 

I think it somewhat explains why GIR was the best predictor of winning of the traditional stats too.  It was sort of the "poor man's" proximity to the hole before the tour had the ability to measure that.

 

18 at ANGC is a good example of a hole where a chip or pitch is likely better than just being on the green.  If the hole is cut in the traditional Sunday location, the front right bunker is not terrible place to be nor is short right if the ball will hold that slope.  Way up the green above the hole with a putt is no bueno.

 

I have often mulled over in my architectural mind how would you design a par five where the best place to lay up is actually past the green?  I want to build that hole as it would be such a foreign concept to golfers to play past the ultimate target to set your self up for a better shot at it.  I would imagine some severe green tilt would come into play.

[Krt22]

27 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Do you use it ?

I am not going to answer that question because I already know the follow up response/question regardless of what I say. Your stance on the subject is already well known, no need to get into that. I completely understand people choosing not to use it, what I don't I understand people who go out of their way in an attempt to undermine it, largely using purely anecdotal evidence (which quite a few people have already done in this thread).

 

At the end of the day it's simply a statistical analysis tool to help determine the most probably outcome for a certain situation. Using anecdotes where a less probably outcome occurs does not invalidate the methodology as a whole. The analogy above about counting cards is perfect.

[bladehunter]

26 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I am not going to answer that question because I already know the follow up response/question regardless of what I say. Your stance on the subject is already well known, no need to get into that. I completely understand people choosing not to use it, what I don't I understand people who go out of their way in an attempt to undermine it, largely using purely anecdotal evidence (which quite a few people have already done in this thread).

 

At the end of the day it's simply a statistical analysis tool to help determine the most probably outcome for a certain situation. Using anecdotes where a less probably outcome occurs does not invalidate the methodology as a whole. The analogy above about counting cards is perfect.

So me asking for examples of data from your play before snd after to quantify its help is out of bounds ?  
 

 

would we accept this for a driver someone bragged on ?  “ hey bill. What kind of numbers do you get with that new combo “ “ don’t know Tom haven’t hit it yet “. That won’t fly if It’s  after bill brags on how great it is for the prior 3 weeks. Right ?  
 

I have been and am asking in a sincere but skeptical humor.  If one good player I knew actually claimed it dropped shots off their game , I’d sit up and take notice.  I keep asking and that answer hasn’t come.  
 

 By the way. 
I’m not attempting to undermine it.  I’m attempting to understand it’s appeal.  If it’s a true help , it will stand up to little me asking questions. Right ? 

 

[Krt22]

10 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

So me asking for examples of data from your play before snd after to quantify its help is out of bounds ?  
 

 

would we accept this for a driver someone bragged on ?  “ hey bill. What kind of numbers do you get with that new combo “ “ don’t know Tom haven’t hit it yet “. That won’t fly if It’s  after bill brags on how great it is for the prior 3 weeks. Right ?  
 

I have been and am asking in a sincere but skeptical humor.  If one good player I knew actually claimed it dropped shots off their game , I’d sit up and take notice.  I keep asking and that answer hasn’t come.  
 

 By the way. 
I’m not attempting to undermine it.  I’m attempting to understand it’s appeal.  If it’s a true help , it will stand up to little me asking questions. Right ? 

 

This is the exact response I predicted and exactly why I made the comment I did. You are looking for one case where someone was not successful using it, so you can further write it off, no need to try to beat around the bush.  You say you are searching for singular event to prove it correct, but in reality its clearly the opposite.  I cannot change your narrow view and have zero desire entertaining your questions or comments any further. 

 

Robust statistical analysis and singular events do not mix, period. Stop conflating the two. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Krt22

[bladehunter]

4 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

This is the exact response I predicted and exactly why I made the comment I did. You are looking for one case where someone was not successful using it, so you can further write it off, no need to try to beat around the bush.  You say you are searching for singular event to prove it correct, but in reality its clearly the opposite.  I cannot change your narrow view and have zero desire entertaining your questions or comments any further. 

 

Robust statistical analysis and singular events do not mix, period. Stop conflating the two. 

Well I tried .  Youre wrong. But it’s  cool.  No hard feeling on my end.  
 

if I wanted to prove it wrong as you say.  I’d just pay for it and then post how it didnt  help me.  If a high or gotcha was my goal , a few bucks and I could have it.  But I’ve spent several years asking here instead.  It’s the most hush hush topic in this game. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by bladehunter

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

Well I tried .  Youre wrong. But it’s  cool.  No hard feeling on my end.  
 

if I wanted to prove it wrong as you say.  I’d just pay for it and then post how it didnt  help me.  If a high or gotcha was my goal , a few bucks and I could have it.  But I’ve spent several years asking here instead.  It’s the most hush hush topic in this game. 

This exactly my point.

 

"if I wanted to prove it wrong as you say.  I’d just pay for it and then post how it didnt  help me."

 

" If one good player I knew actually claimed it dropped shots off their game , I’d sit up and take notice"

 

You are trying to use singular events to assess a statistical method. There is literally zero point in having any sort of discussion or debate with someone who takes such a stance. You literally do not get it. 

[bladehunter]

30 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

This exactly my point.

 

"if I wanted to prove it wrong as you say.  I’d just pay for it and then post how it didnt  help me."

 

" If one good player I knew actually claimed it dropped shots off their game , I’d sit up and take notice"

 

You are trying to use singular events to assess a statistical method. There is literally zero point in having any sort of discussion or debate with someone who takes such a stance. You literally do not get it. 

Never mind. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by bladehunter

[Shilgy]

8 hours ago, bladehunter said:

So you’re looking for a list of soothsayers ?   Dr Seuss is one of my favorites.  As is Dr Phil.   But breaking with the Dr theme , how about Tiresias ?  Probably get more accurate info from him than today’s guys.  He was using his 3rd eye.  🤦‍♂️

 

 

 

 

in seriousness though. A zinger didn’t say they aimed for the ball to finish 3 feet from the pin. He said land 3 feet from the pin.  With a wedge I can absolutely see that as being the goal.  Why wouldn’t it be ? 
 

 

 

 

No, he said as other have stated on telecasts, that they are so good they can land it within a 3’  circle.  True…they may not have been aiming at the pin but they are not aiming as a rule as far away as the stats tell us. The absolute best on tour average 15’ proximity from 125-150 yards. A pitching wedge for most on tour. Tour average is about 22’.  For most pin positions if they could reliably “hit in in a 3’ circle” they are most assuredly not aiming 22’ away. Remember as well that the 22’ proximity is a 44’ circle. So rather than a 3’ circle they are closer to a 44’ circle. Maybe a bit less as they would generally favor one side of the pin over the other but the point is valid. They are not as invincible at ball striking as some think they are. But they are mostly brilliant game managers.

[Aviador Naval]

2 hours ago, Shilgy said:

No, he said as other have stated on telecasts, that they are so good they can land it within a 3’  circle.  True…they may not have been aiming at the pin but they are not aiming as a rule as far away as the stats tell us. The absolute best on tour average 15’ proximity from 125-150 yards. A pitching wedge for most on tour. Tour average is about 22’.  For most pin positions if they could reliably “hit in in a 3’ circle” they are most assuredly not aiming 22’ away. Remember as well that the 22’ proximity is a 44’ circle. So rather than a 3’ circle they are closer to a 44’ circle. Maybe a bit less as they would generally favor one side of the pin over the other but the point is valid. They are not as invincible at ball striking as some think they are. But they are mostly brilliant game managers.

Wish I could like this 10 times.  No pro ever has come close - not even horseshoes and hand grenades close - to being able to reliably and consistently land an approach shot pitching wedge within a 3’ circle on a golf course.  Nobody - not.even.close.

 

There is roughly a light years difference between standing on an impeccably manicured driving range, with no pressure, from a ‘preferred lie’ and focusing on repeatable results  vice a specific distance (I watched MoeTigerHogan at the range at XYZ and he hit 50 balls you could have dropped a blanket over...) as opposed to playing it as it lies, to a real hole, with some tournament pressure and the need to hit an absolutely specific distance on one try.

 

Their tolerances are much tighter and consistency is significantly better but in the end separating the wheat from the chaff is still mostly about knowing your game and managing it accordingly.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Aviador Naval

[bscinstnct]

5 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Well some parts might have been less generally known or acknowledged.  Basically before the modern stats based strategies were publicized, fairways were over valued and proximity to the hole was under valued.  That is pretty much the zeroth order basics.  I have never seen anyone acknowledge those value judgements until the last 10 - 15 years.  It was always put the ball in the fairway to make the best score on every hole or put the ball on the green anywhere rather considering a chip or bunker might be a better spot than a much longer putt.

Is there an element of hitting fairways being more important in the past due to rough, bunker conditions, less wedge/ball technology?

 

 

[bscinstnct]

17 minutes ago, Aviador Naval said:

Wish I could like this 10 times.  No pro ever has come close - not even horseshoes and hand grenades close - to being able to reliably and consistently land a pitching wedge within a 3’ circle on a golf course.  Nobody - not.even.close.

 

There is roughly a light years difference between standing on an impeccably manicured driving range, with no pressure, from a ‘preferred lie’ and focusing on repeatable results  vice a specific distance (I watched MoeTigerHogan at the range at XYZ and he hit 50 balls you could have dropped a blanket over...) as opposed to playing it as it lies, to a real hole, with some tournament pressure and the need to hit an absolutely specific distance on one try.

 

Their tolerances are much tighter and consistency is significantly better but in the end separating the wheat from the chaff is still mostly about knowing your game and managing it accordingly.

 

“No pro ever has come close - not even horseshoes and hand grenades close - to being able to reliably and consistently land a pitching wedge within a 3’ circle on a golf course.  Nobody - not.even.close.”

 

 

 

“I told my caddie, ‘Don’t tell me the yardage is 162 or 163. When I’m holding my 7-iron, I want to know if it’s 162 and a half, because I can hit it 162 and a half.’ ”

 

-Johnny Miller

 

🤣

 

 

 

[Aviador Naval]

2 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

 

“No pro ever has come close - not even horseshoes and hand grenades close - to being able to reliably and consistently land a pitching wedge within a 3’ circle on a golf course.  Nobody - not.even.close.”

 

 

 

“I told my caddie, ‘Don’t tell me the yardage is 162 or 163. When I’m holding my 7-iron, I want to know if it’s 162 and a half, because I can hit it 162 and a half.’ ”

 

-Johnny Miller

 

🤣

 

 

 

Need to find a teenager or some other audio-visual wizard to dub an audio clip of his classic and grossly overused “hit it a groove low” followed by “simply choked” over any shot he hit with 7i or less that didn’t result in a kick in birdie...

[Krt22]

33 minutes ago, Aviador Naval said:

Need to find a teenager or some other audio-visual wizard to dub an audio clip of his classic and grossly overused “hit it a groove low” followed by “simply choked” over any shot he hit with 7i or less that didn’t result in a kick in birdie...

Azinger is the absolute worst when it comes to this sort of crap. Basically anything outside the leather "oh he's not going to be happy about that"

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, Shilgy said:

No, he said as other have stated on telecasts, that they are so good they can land it within a 3’  circle.  True…they may not have been aiming at the pin but they are not aiming as a rule as far away as the stats tell us. The absolute best on tour average 15’ proximity from 125-150 yards. A pitching wedge for most on tour. Tour average is about 22’.  For most pin positions if they could reliably “hit in in a 3’ circle” they are most assuredly not aiming 22’ away. Remember as well that the 22’ proximity is a 44’ circle. So rather than a 3’ circle they are closer to a 44’ circle. Maybe a bit less as they would generally favor one side of the pin over the other but the point is valid. They are not as invincible at ball striking as some think they are. But they are mostly brilliant game managers.

So do you believe they’re aiming it on average 22 ft away from the pin with a wedge or aiming it at the pin and missing enough to make the average dispersion that much ? 

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

Is there an element of hitting fairways being more important in the past due to rough, bunker conditions, less wedge/ball technology?

 

 

So this is my speculation.  Take it with a grain of salt.  Fairways began losing value when greens got smoother and faster.  That's because it became easier to make short putts.  Once you can count on making many 3' to 10' putts, bunker play and chips/short pitches became consistent par generators.

 

Proximity doesn't matter so much on stimp 7 bumpy greens because a 15' putt isn't much more makeable than 20' or 30' putt.  Once you have the ability to make more and longer putts, getting close matters more.

 

To me, the change in green speed and ability to make putts is a more important impact on fairway value than pure distance.

[jvincent]

26 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

So this is my speculation.  Take it with a grain of salt.  Fairways began losing value when greens got smoother and faster.  That's because it became easier to make short putts.  Once you can count on making many 3' to 10' putts, bunker play and chips/short pitches became consistent par generators.

 

Proximity doesn't matter so much on stimp 7 bumpy greens because a 15' putt isn't much more makeable than 20' or 30' putt.  Once you have the ability to make more and longer putts, getting close matters more.

 

To me, the change in green speed and ability to make putts is a more important impact on fairway value than pure distance.

Interesting take. I'm curious how far back they have good putting stats for.

 

Ultimately though, Broadie really did burst the bubble on traditionalist thinking with his strokes gained work.

 

I'm a good example of his school of thought. When I decided I wanted to stop being a mid-teen handicapper I analysed my scores and figured out that I was simply losing too many strokes off the tee due to penalties, being out of position. Once I fixed that, to the exclusion of any short game work, I got into the single digits.

 

The same theory applies to the pros. Strokes gained just pulled the curtains back for anyone willing to look.

[Aviador Naval]

Compelling theory - would be interesting to (have somebody else...) dig into to the data to verify it.

 

Quick guess:  this may also be tied to firing at more pins vice center of the green in your standard run of the mill tournament.  Pulling it off brings more birdies into play.  Even short-sided, your odds of getting up and down are much greater with better greens unless you’re in a true Turkish prison type scenario with severe slopes, etc.  Therefore, in the aggregate, the risk/reward of birdie outweighs risk/penalty of bogey.

[JDCON]

7 hours ago, Krt22 said:

It's a bit alarming how many folks in here love to use singular anecdotes to try to disprove quantitative data. I really don't understand the issue some folks have it.

I’m a data scientist. People use feelings and anecdotes all day to give themselves a reason to dismiss quantitative facts that are either too difficult to grasp or too unpleasant to know. At least I see this in the corporate world.

[Creedo77]

27 minutes ago, Aviador Naval said:

Compelling theory - would be interesting to (have somebody else...) dig into to the data to verify it.

 

Quick guess:  this may also be tied to firing at more pins vice center of the green in your standard run of the mill tournament.  Pulling it off brings more birdies into play.  Even short-sided, your odds of getting up and down are much greater with better greens unless you’re in a true Turkish prison type scenario with severe slopes, etc.  Therefore, in the aggregate, the risk/reward of birdie outweighs risk/penalty of bogey.

Fawcetts strategy is firing away from pins, he said the decade logo indicates that with where the bullseye is compared to the flag 

 

Most pros aren’t fitting at flags on a regular basis 

[Creedo77]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

So do you believe they’re aiming it on average 22 ft away from the pin with a wedge or aiming it at the pin and missing enough to make the average dispersion that much ? 

They’re aiming away from them in regards to the miss. They aren’t aiming at a flag that 4/5 paces off the left side of the green. They’re going to aim 4/5 right of that pin and if they pull it some it’s dead on it, if they hit it straight they’ve got a good look, and if they push it some then they’re taking their par and moving on 

[bladehunter]

8 minutes ago, Creedo77 said:

They’re aiming away from them in regards to the miss. They aren’t aiming at a flag that 4/5 paces off the left side of the green. They’re going to aim 4/5 right of that pin and if they pull it some it’s dead on it, if they hit it straight they’ve got a good look, and if they push it some then they’re taking their par and moving on 

Thanks for the info.  It’s what I suspected was the case most times. I feel like proximity numbers could be better if pins were aimed at most of the time , but of course you’d have to deal with more lost  shots when a miss came about. 
 

In other words , proximity average isn’t a completely honest measure of accuracy if you’re aiming away from the hole. 

[Krt22]

4 hours ago, JDCON said:

I’m a data scientist. People use feelings and anecdotes all day to give themselves a reason to dismiss quantitative facts that are either too difficult to grasp or too unpleasant to know. At least I see this in the corporate world.

This is prevalent everywhere, the only difference is people get paid to dismiss data in the corporate world lol.