Partial or full approach swings…

[PracticeSwinger]

1 minute ago, Krt22 said:

In before the anecdotes! 

Too late haha

[PracticeSwinger]

15 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Interesting, not surprising.  From my reading, here, gapping, wedges and full swings are often lumped together in thread.  Seldom do people come forth talking about wanting 1/2 to 3/4 shots or chase creativity. 

 

I agree - 24ft is NOT good, while 35ft is acceptable.  Not sure 3% of ??, tells the real story.  I think in the scheme of things it's a lot higher percentage.  Based on my experience; most golfers don't have the self-control and or skill to layup to optimum 100+/-yds; they come up short or long of it, necessitating varied swings lengths they don't have.

 

Personally, shorter the better for this feel player.  Under 60yds, I am licking my chops. 

Last number I saw, they had over 516,000,000 shots in their database (end of 2021)... now that's all shots from all distances... and you even have to cut down to find the number of players that had at least 25 shots from 40-60yds and 90-110yds fairway shots...

 

but still, it's 3% of [a freaking big numbers of golfers of all skills]

[bladehunter]

So …… who’s stats do we worship ?  Are we really to the point now where we call 200 or so rounds worth of stats “ anecdotal “? And if so why do we keep these stats ?  

[PracticeSwinger]

6 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

So …… who’s stats do we worship ?  Are we really to the point now where we call 200 or so rounds worth of stats “ anecdotal “? And if so why do we keep these stats ?  

Not sure if this was directed at me... I'm trying to take the high road, and with 200 rounds of golf you can clearly draw lines - as you have... probably a mix of both : great ball striking and poor chipping that leads to your proximity from 75-100 being closer by 2ft then from 25-75 - combined that with your putting woes mentioned in the other thread - your low hanging fruit is evident

Edited November 18, 2022 by MtlJayMan
typo

[mhudson111]

24 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Interesting, not surprising.  From my reading, here, gapping, wedges and full swings are often lumped together in thread.  Seldom do people come forth talking about wanting 1/2 to 3/4 shots or chase creativity. 

 

I agree - 24ft is NOT good, while 35ft is acceptable.  Not sure 3% of ??, tells the real story.  I think in the scheme of things it's a lot higher percentage.  Based on my experience; most golfers don't have the self-control and or skill to layup to optimum 100+/-yds; they come up short or long of it, necessitating varied swings lengths they don't have.

 

Personally, shorter the better for this feel player.  Under 60yds, I am licking my chops. 

So this guy has measured hundreds of thousands or millions of shots (= reality) counted the numbers closer from farther away (in reality) = 3%

 

and you think “in the scheme of things it’s a lot higher percentage”?

 

You are literally arguing against reality!
 

[MonteScheinblum]

16 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

In before the anecdotes! 

Kidding aside it’s easy to see how these affect people.

 

Imagine you have someone has okayed Augusta 3 times.  All 3 times the greens were punched.  
 

That person will argue tooth and nail that the greens at Augusta suck. No evidence to the contrary will sway them.

 

I realize this is an unrealistic example, because you can’t play Augusta when the greens are punched and who could get on Augusta 3 times….lol.

 

The point is, no one wants to hear information different from their experience.  
 

“One time I over clubbed my layup to 100 yards and it hit a cart path and ended up 50.  I bladed my ball over the green out of bounds and made double.  I always make par when I layup to 100.”

[bladehunter]

9 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

Not sure if this was directed at me... I'm trying to take the high road, and with 200 rounds of golf you can clearly draw lines - as you have... probably a mix of both : great ball striking and poor chipping that leads to your proximity from 75-100 being closer by 2ft then from 25-75 - combined that with your putting woes mentioned in the other thread - your low hanging fruit is evident

Nope not at you at all. 

[Krt22]

8 minutes ago, mhudson111 said:

 

 

You are literally arguing against reality!
 

Golfer's love to do that

[North Butte]

29 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

3.  The 3% are absolutely those that have swing issues that destroy their partial shot pattern.  Long backswing, too inside going back, too much weight shift, etc.

 

In my anecdote from 15 years ago, when my teaching pro straightened out my own being worse from 100 than from 50, these were pretty much the issues he diagnosed. I was starting from a not particularly good full wedge swing (yank it behind at takeaway, swaying off the ball plus my weight shifting to my heels then back to my toes). Then I was making a full backswing and trying to just not hit it as hard on the partial shots. The weight shift thing alone made it almost impossible to be precise with contact on a half-swing shot. 

 

[Pepperturbo]

27 minutes ago, mhudson111 said:

So this guy has measured hundreds of thousands or millions of shots (= reality) counted the numbers closer from farther away (in reality) = 3%

 

and you think “in the scheme of things it’s a lot higher percentage”?

 

You are literally arguing against reality!
 

In your eyes, maybe.  But we don't all deal with someone's stats the same.  Just because someone says he's done something with X, says X, then draws a conclusion, does NOT mean it's true, or of value to everyone or what everyone experiences.  Other than what he says, I don't know what actually makes up those numbers, it could be curved.  Kind of like the research Twitter gave to Musk on subscription numbers.  Musk says, leave out bots, what's that number?  Oops, Twitter doesn't actually know, yet offers vanishing percentages for this and that.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Pepperturbo

[PracticeSwinger]

4 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

In your eyes, maybe.  But we don't all deal with someone's stats the same.  Just because someone says he's done something with X, says X, then draws a conclusion, does NOT mean it's true, or of value to everyone or what everyone experiences.  Other than what he says, I don't know what actually makes up those numbers, it could be curved.  Kind of like the research Twitter gave to Musk on subscription numbers.  Musk says, leave out bots, what's that number?  Oops, Twitter doesn't actually know, yet offers vanishing percentages for this and that.

For once, we have stats on thousands of players compared to themselves, just different distances to pin - every single player in the database... thought it would interesting, not to have to filter out in our discussion : yeah, but Pros don't play the same game... and now we have to fight with bots playing golf! (take that tongue in cheek obvisouly)

[Pepperturbo]

24 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

For once, we have stats on thousands of players compared to themselves, just different distances to pin - every single player in the database... thought it would interesting, not to have to filter out in our discussion : yeah, but Pros don't play the same game... and now we have to fight with bots playing golf! (take that tongue in cheek obvisouly)

Yep, does darn bots are at it again. LOL Only called Arccos Sensors and Arccos Link by Joe user.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Pepperturbo

[bluedot]

The guys who hang onto the “layup to your favorite distance” canard, like my brother, just don’t put in the practice time to hit partial shots effectively.  When faced with those, they either don’t have the right equipment, or the right technique, or the correct approach.  Or all of those…

 

To at least some extent, when you practice your full swing with one club, you are practicing your full swing with ALL clubs.  That's a bit of an oversimplification, but not a big one.  Dave Pelz YEARS ago urged ams to have three swings of different lengths with each wedge, AND to know how far each one goes.   What % of ams actually do that, even now?
 

I start EVERY pre-round warmup with “9 to 3 swings” with my LW, then do the same thing with my 54* before I make even one full swing.  I also have a note card in my scorecard wallet that gives me clubs and the swing I need from any yardage between 30 and 70 yds. So from 30 to 40, it’s a “7:30 LW” and so on.  Depending on the pin position, and green speed, etc., I pick the club and shorten or lengthen the swing, BUT I’ve always practiced the shot.  
 

I was a basketball coach; dunks are higher percentage than layups, layups higher than free throws, and so on.  I have NO idea why anybody would think golf would be different. 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

Any competent teacher could probably turn the 3% to 0% with tweaks to technique. The only exceptions I can think of are condition related and even then I can't say I'm going to do any better leaving myself a longer shot, it's more mental in knowing the shot I need to hit to get it close.

Edited November 18, 2022 by TLUBulldogGolf

[me05501]

4 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

 

4.  People love to use outliers to prove their points.  

 

For sure. And this works on multiple levels. Lou probably chose the specific distances he chose because they made his point most clearly. Nothing wrong with that, but it gets us treating the 3% number like it’s the point when it’s not. 

[Krt22]

21 minutes ago, me05501 said:

For sure. And this works on multiple levels. Lou probably chose the specific distances he chose because they made his point most clearly. Nothing wrong with that, but it gets us treating the 3% number like it’s the point when it’s not. 

What is the point then? 40-60 is a common partial wedge for just about every golfer and 90-110 is a full wedge for just about every golfer.  The fact that only 3% of a huge swath of golfers do better from further away from the hole is exactly the point. 

 

Of course every golfer who lays up "to a number" is going to think they are in that 3%, but in reality they likely are part of other 97%. 

[PracticeSwinger]

22 minutes ago, me05501 said:

For sure. And this works on multiple levels. Lou probably chose the specific distances he chose because they made his point most clearly. Nothing wrong with that, but it gets us treating the 3% number like it’s the point when it’s not. 

Agree on that - when you have access to all the info; you can choose the one that serves your narrative the best… it still holds true though…

[scooterhd2]

49 minutes ago, me05501 said:

For sure. And this works on multiple levels. Lou probably chose the specific distances he chose because they made his point most clearly. Nothing wrong with that, but it gets us treating the 3% number like it’s the point when it’s not. 

 

Ehh.. the problem with other distances is people would naturally agree and the point wouldnt be taken clearly. If we look at proximity from 175 vs 225, not too many people are going to claim they are better from distance. What about 150 vs 200? Well, shorter is better obviously. A mid iron is obviously more accurate than a hybrid. What about 125 vs 175. Well, who doesnt think PW is better than 5 iron? Of course closer is better. And 100 vs 150? Yes, full wedge is more accurate than a 7. Might find one weirdo who think he is better than tour pros with a 7, but 99% will agree. And the same stats Lou parsed through will show that the closer distance is better for proximity and scoring average at every single interval for 97+ percent of people. More like 99% at those distances. So why choose 40 vs 80? Well thats where you will find debate. Look at this thread. If you want to source data to answer a question, there needs to be a question. There needs to be a decent chunk of people who think the oppostite. 

[North Butte]

In engineering or statistics, when discussing an optimization problem one at some point must specify a loss function. That is the mathematical representation of the "cost" of various outcomes. The optimization problem then is solved by minimization of that loss function.

 

We'd think that a golfer's choice of going for the green or laying up on, for example, a borderline reachable Par 5 might be described by a simple loss function whereby he wants to minimize, over all possible rounds, the total number of strokes needed to finish the hole under each alternative being considered. It is this form of obvious, simple loss function that all analytics-derived "new conventional wisdom" findings emerge. 

 

I'd submit that by working backwards from golfer behavior, there are other loss functions being minimized by a large portion of golfers. My suspicion is it's largely to do with minimizing what are perceived as "failures". A golfer may feel supremely confident in his ability to lay up from 250 yards to 90 yards and in his ability to hit the green in the general vicinity of the hole from 90 yards. So that choice has (at least in his perception, which is what matters here) a very small value for the no-failures loss function. 

 

Now let's say he isn't all that confident with his 30-60 yard wedge game. He might occasionally misfire on that sort of touch shot and bring missing the green with his third into play. And missing the green from 40 yards seems like a much larger "failure" than even missing it from 90 yards. Furthermore, his idea of success or failure from as close as 40 yards is that he should be able to hit the ball to within very makable one-putt range (let's say 10 feet). So if he hits a 30-yard or 50-yard wedge shot 25 feet from the hole that becomes a "failure" even though from 90 yards he'd consider it not such a bad shot at all.

 

This is the sort of mental optimization process that the "old conventional wisdom" was designed to address. Give yourself the best possible chance of hitting a good 160-yard layup followed by a good 90-yard wedge shot and then make your best possible attempt at holing out what 10, 20, 30 foot putt that results from those first two shots. The "risk" of failure involved in trying to execute a good 200 yard layup followed by a good 50 yard wedge is emphasized because the definitions of "failure" are so exacting. 

 

From a score-minimizing point of view, successes or failures are cumulative and are measured in fractions of a stroke within a give hole and a given round. They add up over time to give the golfer the best possible scoring outcome. But that view entails letting go of the notion that each shot should be chosen to maximize "success" for that specific shot only (as measured by an ultimately subjective success/failure reckoning). 

[uitar9]

Tour stats

Approach 100-125 Ft Average 20 ft

50-75 ft Average 18 ft

 

Yup, closer seems to be better. 

[MelloYello]

I'm a good example of how closer = better in the long run.

 

One thing I did this year was examine why I wasn't scratch. One big answer for me was that I was only averaging 1-2 birdies per round. This didn't allow for many mistakes. It meant I had to play perfectly on the other 16-17 holes. 

 

In an attempt to improve I looked to make more birdies on Par-5s. I had historically laid up a lot to avoid the "big miss" with the fairway metal approach. I was lucky to play with a few good players who were taking on these shots and it was clear to me they were succeeding at those shots and gaining ground.

 

If I couldn't pull off those types of shots safely, I wasn't as good as I thought I was. Either I'd immediately improve or I'd know what to work on. 

 

When I started being more aggressive I did start missing big but I was quickly able to get that under control and eventually I saw my par-5 scoring average come down by as much as 0.5 strokes per hole during my peak months. I started making 4-, 5- and 6-birdies in my good rounds and I dropped from being a 2-index down to a 0-index. 

 

.

Edited November 19, 2022 by MelloYello

[baudi]

20 hours ago, MtlJayMan said:

40 to 60 yards range versus 90 to 110 yards in the fairway range

 

Without insight it is a meaningless platitude.

Please show Poisson distributions of scores (better-equal-worse) per playing category and compare.

Then discuss. 

 

Fundamentally, the marksman aims at himself.

 

[North Butte]

32 minutes ago, baudi said:

 

Without insight it is a meaningless platitude.

Please show Poisson distributions of scores (better-equal-worse) per playing category and compare.

Then discuss. 

 

Fundamentally, the marksman aims at himself.

 

Common sense says being 40 yards from the hole will lead to better scoring than being 100 yards from the hole and yet it often seems the entire world is dead set on believing the opposite. It's useful to show that even the most simplistic presentation of real-world scoring results comport with common sense. We're not trying to tease out some subtle, complex pattern here and we sure as heck don't need some model to put a p-value of less than .05 on it in order to believe the obvious explanation. 

 

You don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows. And you don't need a Poisson model to know that shorter shots end up closer to the hole than longer shots. 

[baudi]

Maybe you missed the word ''platitude''. 

So please tell me: how much overlap is there between scores?  

That I care for. Not 3% better between 70 and 90yds. 

 

[North Butte]

50 minutes ago, baudi said:

Maybe you missed the word ''platitude''. 

So please tell me: how much overlap is there between scores?  

That I care for. Not 3% better between 70 and 90yds. 

 

I dunno. Ask the doofuses who think they score "better" from longer distances. 

[Back9]

14 hours ago, North Butte said:

In engineering or statistics, when discussing an optimization problem one at some point must specify a loss function. That is the mathematical representation of the "cost" of various outcomes. The optimization problem then is solved by minimization of that loss function.

 

We'd think that a golfer's choice of going for the green or laying up on, for example, a borderline reachable Par 5 might be described by a simple loss function whereby he wants to minimize, over all possible rounds, the total number of strokes needed to finish the hole under each alternative being considered. It is this form of obvious, simple loss function that all analytics-derived "new conventional wisdom" findings emerge. 

 

I'd submit that by working backwards from golfer behavior, there are other loss functions being minimized by a large portion of golfers. My suspicion is it's largely to do with minimizing what are perceived as "failures". A golfer may feel supremely confident in his ability to lay up from 250 yards to 90 yards and in his ability to hit the green in the general vicinity of the hole from 90 yards. So that choice has (at least in his perception, which is what matters here) a very small value for the no-failures loss function. 

 

Now let's say he isn't all that confident with his 30-60 yard wedge game. He might occasionally misfire on that sort of touch shot and bring missing the green with his third into play. And missing the green from 40 yards seems like a much larger "failure" than even missing it from 90 yards. Furthermore, his idea of success or failure from as close as 40 yards is that he should be able to hit the ball to within very makable one-putt range (let's say 10 feet). So if he hits a 30-yard or 50-yard wedge shot 25 feet from the hole that becomes a "failure" even though from 90 yards he'd consider it not such a bad shot at all.

 

This is the sort of mental optimization process that the "old conventional wisdom" was designed to address. Give yourself the best possible chance of hitting a good 160-yard layup followed by a good 90-yard wedge shot and then make your best possible attempt at holing out what 10, 20, 30 foot putt that results from those first two shots. The "risk" of failure involved in trying to execute a good 200 yard layup followed by a good 50 yard wedge is emphasized because the definitions of "failure" are so exacting. 

 

From a score-minimizing point of view, successes or failures are cumulative and are measured in fractions of a stroke within a give hole and a given round. They add up over time to give the golfer the best possible scoring outcome. But that view entails letting go of the notion that each shot should be chosen to maximize "success" for that specific shot only (as measured by an ultimately subjective success/failure reckoning). 

Exactly this.  For many people on a long par 5, the mental comfort of taking full swings with a layup iron and a favorite wedge trumps the long term scoring advantage of hitting a longer approach to a partial wedge distance.  People will continue to want to do what they find mentally comfortable despite empirical evidence that they would perform better overall by doing something that produces a little more anxiety.  The lure of the “easy par” is strong.

[baudi]

Yes it's blank- Thanks for making my point.   

[Pepperturbo]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

I dunno. Ask the doofuses who think they score "better" from longer distances. 

Maybe a more appropriate way to say that is from full swing distances.  IMO whether it's shorter distance or longer distances, probably depends on level of skill.

[MelloYello]

On 11/18/2022 at 7:20 PM, North Butte said:

In engineering or statistics, when discussing an optimization problem one at some point must specify a loss function. That is the mathematical representation of the "cost" of various outcomes. The optimization problem then is solved by minimization of that loss function.

 

We'd think that a golfer's choice of going for the green or laying up on, for example, a borderline reachable Par 5 might be described by a simple loss function whereby he wants to minimize, over all possible rounds, the total number of strokes needed to finish the hole under each alternative being considered. It is this form of obvious, simple loss function that all analytics-derived "new conventional wisdom" findings emerge. 

 

I'd submit that by working backwards from golfer behavior, there are other loss functions being minimized by a large portion of golfers. My suspicion is it's largely to do with minimizing what are perceived as "failures". A golfer may feel supremely confident in his ability to lay up from 250 yards to 90 yards and in his ability to hit the green in the general vicinity of the hole from 90 yards. So that choice has (at least in his perception, which is what matters here) a very small value for the no-failures loss function. 

 

Now let's say he isn't all that confident with his 30-60 yard wedge game. He might occasionally misfire on that sort of touch shot and bring missing the green with his third into play. And missing the green from 40 yards seems like a much larger "failure" than even missing it from 90 yards. Furthermore, his idea of success or failure from as close as 40 yards is that he should be able to hit the ball to within very makable one-putt range (let's say 10 feet). So if he hits a 30-yard or 50-yard wedge shot 25 feet from the hole that becomes a "failure" even though from 90 yards he'd consider it not such a bad shot at all.

 

This is the sort of mental optimization process that the "old conventional wisdom" was designed to address. Give yourself the best possible chance of hitting a good 160-yard layup followed by a good 90-yard wedge shot and then make your best possible attempt at holing out what 10, 20, 30 foot putt that results from those first two shots. The "risk" of failure involved in trying to execute a good 200 yard layup followed by a good 50 yard wedge is emphasized because the definitions of "failure" are so exacting. 

 

From a score-minimizing point of view, successes or failures are cumulative and are measured in fractions of a stroke within a give hole and a given round. They add up over time to give the golfer the best possible scoring outcome. But that view entails letting go of the notion that each shot should be chosen to maximize "success" for that specific shot only (as measured by an ultimately subjective success/failure reckoning). 

 

What you're describing is definitely true in real life. 

 

I think it says a lot that some people view the weaknesses in their game as a chance to work on something and improve whereas others view weaknesses as things that should be avoided. 

 

Should we optimize for today? Or should we be more bold than to accept that, instead opting for something more ambitious knowing we can work on the weaker parts of our game and evolve towards a higher standard? 

 

I prefer the latter, but of course, I'm 36yo and thus still relatively young meaning I'm capable of believing my best golf is still ahead of me....whether or not that's true, haha 🙂

[ezra76]

I practice in a field with a 5gallon bucket. It was interesting when I got that PRGR. Confirmed my thousands of feel shots. My 3/4 shots with 48* went 80yds. and 56* 60yds.. The part that amazed me is after 3 balls each club every swing was either 65 or 66mph..