How often do PGA caddie's test Green density ? Tucker did every week for Bryson

[MaineMariner]

What are the odds that BDC's caddie just totally fakes the measurements?

 

"So what's the green density today?"

 

"Uh... it's... 6."

[mallrat]

43 minutes ago, LukeDonaldsTiger said:

I was just trying to be funny and failed. Wasn’t directed at you. 

i laughed partly because I know there’s a ton I don’t know. I didn’t know if this was a thing at some courses. 

[torbill]

6 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Seems like air density is one of those things you calculate once on Wednesday and develop your "rule of thumb" for the week and go from there.  It doesn't take a mental giant to understand that high humidity at sea level the ball isn't going as far as drier air at altitude.  But you figure, "hey my irons are going 10% (or whatever) farther and biting less when they hit" and go on about your business.

 

 

I'm on record here saying BCD needs something to occupy his mind out there.  You read some of the Rotella stuff and he is advocating you focus on golf only when it is time to focus on the shot because you just can't have your brain tuned to golf for a six hour round without having a mental gaffe that costs you a stroke.  I think BDC needs something to keep him from thinking about mechanics directly while he plays so he invents this extra stuff he thinks he needs to know to make a decision when for most it is "yardage, lie, wind?, target, shape, club and go."  (not necessarily in that order)

 

Talking about quantifying.  BDC is working in Xsub10+ world when he is analyzing variables' impacts on the outcome.  Xsub3 is probably adequate for most of our abilities' to execute a shot.

 

 

How about ‘dat… somebody gets the psychology of it.  

 

Most people who are of a science/engineering bent have voices in their heads that tell them that if they can’t measure something they must not understand it.  Whether the measurements make any difference is likely immaterial. When the pressure is on, people go to what makes them comfortable. 

 

Everybody is a bit different and, as often is the case, the tribe goes after those who are different because they feel more comfortable when everybody conforms.  I shudder to think about what the comments would have been if Hogan had lived in internet times.  

Edited July 28, 2021 by torbill

[billybaroo]

Give any top PGA player 10 balls from 100 yards and tell them to hit their 1st pitch mark 9 more times. 

 

You'd think he'd have a lot more hole in ones with this pseudo-science. 😄

Edited July 28, 2021 by billybaroo

[bscinstnct]

Whaddaya think the green density is, Mr Hogan?

 

Bout as dense as your head.

 

 

[Soloman1]

3 hours ago, torbill said:

 

 

How about ‘dat… somebody gets the psychology of it.  

 

Most people who are of a science/engineering bent have voices in their heads that tell them that if they can’t measure something they must not understand it.  Whether the measurements make any difference is likely immaterial. When the pressure is on, people go to what makes them comfortable. 

 

Everybody is a bit different and, as often is the case, the tribe goes after those who are different because they feel more comfortable when everybody conforms.  I shudder to think about what the comments would have been if Hogan had lived in internet times.  

 

I agree. We engineers are morons, but somehow we build things that work.

[smashdn]

I don't know if I should be honored or insulted to be lumped in with engineers.  I am just a safety guy (EHS) who did about a seven year stint as a manufacturing engineer.  I know I don't know.

[Soloman1]

I just developed an automated system to test green density. His new caddie can load this into a pickup truck and use it to test greens early in the mornings and record the data.

 

 

[torbill]

11 hours ago, smashdn said:

I don't know if I should be honored or insulted to be lumped in with engineers.  I am just a safety guy (EHS) who did about a seven year stint as a manufacturing engineer.  I know I don't know.

 

Mfg engineer is plenty good, you are officially lumped.  Now feel honored, lol.

[jc2]

On 7/28/2021 at 7:11 PM, torbill said:

 

 

How about ‘dat… somebody gets the psychology of it.  

 

Most people who are of a science/engineering bent have voices in their heads that tell them that if they can’t measure something they must not understand it.  Whether the measurements make any difference is likely immaterial. When the pressure is on, people go to what makes them comfortable. 

 

Everybody is a bit different and, as often is the case, the tribe goes after those who are different because they feel more comfortable when everybody conforms.  I shudder to think about what the comments would have been if Hogan had lived in internet times.  

Another Engineer (ME/EE) here.  I want to measure everything, but for me it's so I can figure out what I don't need to take into account because that way I don't get bogged down on stuff that doesn't matter.  If you can't hit a ball inch perfect then green density that will have a 4" difference in rollout doesn't need to be factored in.  In golf I know that nothing will affect the ball more than my swing, so I need to have 2 or less thoughts in my head or the results are going to be less than ideal

 

But I agree that each person does things different.  There are as many ways to solve a problem as there are engineers working on it.  And every engineer thinks their way is the superior solution even when they acknowledge that another solution also gets the job done just as well

 

 

[woodriff]

Engineers chiming in with interesting  facts. Great read. BDC has all that information for one golf shot and yet still fails the Cov*d test twice. Go figure. 

[dubbelbogey]

10 hours ago, woodriff said:

Engineers chiming in with interesting  facts. Great read. BDC has all that information for one golf shot and yet still fails the Cov*d test twice. Go figure. 

For one, BDC ain't no engineer. As an engineer myself, his analytical skills seem dubious at best, bordering on pseudo-science. One thing all good engineers learn very early is what factors don't matter because they're not controllable or are "in the noise". BDC spends a lot of time, seemingly, in the noise.

 

I play golf with a number of other engineers. Pretty much all of us are anything but analytical when it comes to our on-course golf games. Sure, some of us look at data after the round, and maybe analyzing that data comes pretty easily to us, but when it comes to actually playing, we're likely not that much different than anybody else from all other realms of work. No compasses or density measurements here.

[kasting333]

On 7/28/2021 at 3:15 PM, sekrah said:

IMO, DeChambeau's inch-precision calculations from the middle of the fairway are just bullxxxx to keep his mind occupied. If him and his caddy are rattling math off to each other it could be an effective way to deal with pressure.

 

Yup, I think it’s more of an OCD thing than anything else. He quantifies everything he can think of and it makes him feel like he has an edge. 

[iNeedMoreGolf]

Im guessing green density is how receptive the green will be to the ball landing on it aka rollout from being to soft or hard? Also... i just read in a golf magazine bryson said hes currently working on chewing his food more to absorb more nutrients.... that one made me litteraly LOL

[torbill]

8 hours ago, dubbelbogey said:

For one, BDC ain't no engineer. As an engineer myself, his analytical skills seem dubious at best, bordering on pseudo-science. One thing all good engineers learn very early is what factors don't matter because they're not controllable or are "in the noise". BDC spends a lot of time, seemingly, in the noise.

 

I play golf with a number of other engineers. Pretty much all of us are anything but analytical when it comes to our on-course golf games. Sure, some of us look at data after the round, and maybe analyzing that data comes pretty easily to us, but when it comes to actually playing, we're likely not that much different than anybody else from all other realms of work. No compasses or density measurements here.

 

Right, Bryson is no engineer and I never stated that he is.  I think that he has a physics background, which is why I said scientist/engineer. And in my experience with scientists, and I’ve worked with a lot of scientists, they think every bit as anal-lytically as we do, lol.

 

In any event I agree with what you say about engineers being very good at separating the signal from the noise and focusing on what actually matters, and it’s not at all clear that Bryson is good at this - I think that it’s called common sense.

 

But my point was a bit different.  Bryson has a particular nature, either innate or acquired through training.  He is as he is.  He behaves in manners that people who don’t have these inner voices of analysis probably don’t understand, that what gives him comfort is a bit different.  So people should try to understand, just a teensy bit, and cut him a little slack.  Whether or not some of the nonsense that he practices makes any real difference is secondary to my point.

 

The other thing… about your non-analytical golf game.  You seem to be characterizing your approach to the game by what happens once you get to the course.  But how about all of what led up to it?  If you’re anything like me and a whole lot of other analytical types I’ll bet that you’ve taken a different approach to learning swing principles, developing your principles, managing your game.  I’ll bet that you instinctively dismiss the endless swing theory nonsense that you know can’t work as described, and focus on swing theory teaching that can work according to physical principles - and that your approach to practice, course management, etc. is maybe a bit different than what non-analytical people do.  What I’m saying is that people like us sometimes don’t even realize how different we are, in our approach to problems and solutions.     

[dubbelbogey]

2 hours ago, torbill said:

 

 

 

The other thing… about your non-analytical golf game.  You seem to be characterizing your approach to the game by what happens once you get to the course.  But how about all of what led up to it?  If you’re anything like me and a whole lot of other analytical types I’ll bet that you’ve taken a different approach to learning swing principles, developing your principles, managing your game.  I’ll bet that you instinctively dismiss the endless swing theory nonsense that you know can’t work as described, and focus on swing theory teaching that can work according to physical principles - and that your approach to practice, course management, etc. is maybe a bit different than what non-analytical people do.  What I’m saying is that people like us sometimes don’t even realize how different we are, in our approach to problems and solutions.     

You might be mostly wrong about me on this front. I also have a longer background in other sports where things are more reactionary than in golf (e.g. tennis, hockey). My approach to hitting an object with a stick is more rooted in that background than any technical, analytical approach. At least to my own perception (as biased as that can be) its more about feels and looks. See target, see ball - hit ball to target. Approaches that focus on "positions" in the golf swing are almost anathema to me.

 

But where you may have a good point is that I do tend to dismiss a lot of cliched things I've heard about golf over the years. E.g. "Lay up to your favorite full swing distance". "Better short in the fairway than long in the rough".  Often that's just tired BS that makes no sense.

 

As for course management - it's pretty simple. Hit it as far as possible off the tee without putting trouble into too much play. Don't pin hunt unnecessarily. Take your medicine when needed. Same thing I told my son when he was learning the game as a young kid.

 

 

 

 

[Fairways_and_Greens]

This reminds me the the bro scientist in the fitness industry. I'd like to meet the guy feeding this stuff to him. 

[kasting333]

8 hours ago, torbill said:

In any event I agree with what you say about engineers being very good at separating the signal from the noise and focusing on what actually matters, and it’s not at all clear that Bryson is good at this

How would you characterize Bryson successfully gaining distance and proceeding to win a major because of it?

[wjdpar1]

I can easily shoot 41 for 9 holes and have never measured "green density".

 

[DFS PFD]

1 hour ago, wjdpar1 said:

I can easily shoot 41 for 9 holes and have never measured "green density".

 

We'll all be rooting for you on tour ! Congrats on the 41

[grm24]

On 7/31/2021 at 4:11 PM, kasting333 said:

How would you characterize Bryson successfully gaining distance and proceeding to win a major because of it?

A fluke?

[chouls19]

4 hours ago, grm24 said:

A fluke?

PGA wins and US Am and NCAA in the same year is not a fluke. He’s a talent. But very different and people seem to hate that

[BlackDiamondPar5]

14 hours ago, wjdpar1 said:

I can easily shoot 41 for 9 holes and have never measured "green density".

 

But maybe if you measured "green density" you could have shot 39 or 40 🤣 

[gioguy21]

On 7/31/2021 at 4:11 PM, kasting333 said:

How would you characterize Bryson successfully gaining distance and proceeding to win a major because of it?

illusory-correlation bias. 

he won BEFORE he was jacked -- since his outcome(s) after the change were positive, you're inclined to believe it was because of him gaining distance that he won. 

had he not won -- would we be having this discussion? 

 

[physasst]

1 hour ago, gioguy21 said:

illusory-correlation bias. 

he won BEFORE he was jacked -- since his outcome(s) after the change were positive, you're inclined to believe it was because of him gaining distance that he won. 

had he not won -- would we be having this discussion? 

 

 

Exactly, and he didn't win at Winged Foot because of his distance, he putted and chipped really well that week. He was 3rd in SG approach and putting, and 2nd in SG around the green. 

[kasting333]

2 hours ago, gioguy21 said:

illusory-correlation bias. 

he won BEFORE he was jacked -- since his outcome(s) after the change were positive, you're inclined to believe it was because of him gaining distance that he won. 

had he not won -- would we be having this discussion? 

 

He never even contended in a major before gaining distance. 

[gvogel]

Will Bryson end up being the modern Bert Yancey?

[gioguy21]

5 minutes ago, kasting333 said:

He never even contended in a major before gaining distance. 

hasn't contended much since the win -- one could make the argument that the one win was more due to his short game and approach than it was off the tee.

he's had 2 top 5's out of 21 starts (including the win). this year he didn't have a top 25...

you could also argue that the mental aspect and confidence in ones self is very strong -- he had a TON of confidence and visibility after he went 'big'...that does a LOT for your game. 

again, you're saying there's a direct connection between getting swole and all of a sudden winning majors -- if this were the case he'd have won or been top 5 in almost every major since coming back. 

[Circaflex]

On 7/28/2021 at 3:12 AM, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Sounds like pseudo science nonsense. 

Much like Bryson career; he enjoys uses "big," "confusing" words to sound smart. I could be wrong, but I don't believe he actually has a Physics degree either.

[kasting333]

25 minutes ago, gioguy21 said:

hasn't contended much since the win -- one could make the argument that the one win was more due to his short game and approach than it was off the tee.

he's had 2 top 5's out of 21 starts (including the win). this year he didn't have a top 25...

you could also argue that the mental aspect and confidence in ones self is very strong -- he had a TON of confidence and visibility after he went 'big'...that does a LOT for your game. 

again, you're saying there's a direct connection between getting swole and all of a sudden winning majors -- if this were the case he'd have won or been top 5 in almost every major since coming back. 

So why would he win or be top 5 in every major? I can’t keep up with your straw man argument. 
 

Again, what major did he win prior to the distance gains?