Brad Faxon vs Scott Fawcett: Feel vs Data driven?

[Louis_Posture]

15 minutes ago, TonyRo said:

I think most people think they're better putters than they are: 

 

Mishit putts are not as obvious as a mishit tee shot, and I believe this is why it is common for players to believe their putting game is 'not a problem'.

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, jvincent said:

 

I'm not sure if it's a fault really but from a SG perspective all misses are the same. The fact that some had a chance doesn't matter.

 

Where the DECADE guys get their panties in a twist is when they look at the dispersion circle. Let's say you've got a 10 ft dispersion circle for putts from 20 feet (yes, you suck that bad). Their argument would be that if you try to finish 2 feet past the hole then a large enough percentage of your next putts will be low probability vs trying to die every putt into the hole.

 

Again, the premise above is that your speed control sucks. And when you think about it, most really bad amateur putters struggle more with speed than line so from the perspective of improving their scores it makes sense to try and lag it to the hole.

 

Once you get to a point where your dispersion is better, then from a SG perspective there is very little difference in trying get the ball past the hole vs lagging it to the hole. 

Which to me is an incomplete stat.

 

Take two golfers on tour

 

Roy McAvoy is a bit of a head case afraid of three putting…ever.  So he lags every approach putt to about 6 inches to a foot short and taps in the next.

 

Brad Claxton has excellent speed control and knows it and trusts it.  Every putt is hit with a speed that would finish a foot or two past the hole.

Some of them are going in and creating wins and Roy is headed back to Texas with nothing.

 

 

[RCGA]

43 minutes ago, TonyRo said:

I think most people think they're better putters than they are: 

 

 

I used to follow Lou and put a lot of stock into these tweets. But then I realized, literally, what is the point of this information?

 

It just made me more apathetic towards putting. My three-putt rate when way up because, hey, 5-6ft ain't bad according to Lou. And it must be an good result even though it didn't even sniff the hole. I mean, why even bother reading the green if you'd happy with that as a result? 

[tacklingdummy]

1 hour ago, RCGA said:

 

I used to follow Lou and put a lot of stock into these tweets. But then I realized, literally, what is the point of this information?

 

It just made me more apathetic towards putting. My three-putt rate when way up because, hey, 5-6ft ain't bad according to Lou. And it must be an good result even though it didn't even sniff the hole. I mean, why even bother reading the green if you'd happy with that as a result? 

 

Lou Stagner and Scott Fawcett are not saying 5-6 feet is not bad. That is a misinterpretation. The point of the information is that 33 feet is the magic number where you have a higher chance of a 3-putt rather than making the putt (These are the stats for PGA tour players).  So, anything outside of 33 feet, the focus should be focusing more on speed and lagging for a two-putt rather than making it.  Likely for amateurs the magic number is much shorter than 33 feet. 

 

This chart shows the make percentage verses the 3-putt percentage.

 

[m d g]

5 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Based on SG a 6’ putt left 6” short is better than the same 6’ putt hit 3’ past.
Which is fine….if you are measuring misses.  The short putt never had a chance to go in.

 

 

Never up never in®

 

I just thought of this and it's pretty catchy. I think it has a future as a classic golf cliche some day.

 

So please feel free to use this next time you leave one short.

[Shilgy]

9 minutes ago, m d g said:

 

Never up never in®

 

I just thought of this and it's pretty catchy. I think it has a future as a classic golf cliche some day.

 

So please feel free to use this next time you leave one short.

Wow! I’ve never heard that before.  How witty of you.🤣

[Mcgeeno]

As in most things with life, people typically dislike what they dont understand.

 

I dont think this site is the data driven type of place lol. Its kinda still a 'drive for show putt for dough' type of vibe. 

 

 

 

 

[iBanesto]

A putt short or a putt long, still a missed putt... just hole it... 😅

 

It all adds up on the final scorecard.

 

[PedronNiall]

1 hour ago, Mcgeeno said:

As in most things with life, people typically dislike what they dont understand.

 

I dont think this site is the data driven type of place lol. Its kinda still a 'drive for show putt for dough' type of vibe. 

 

 

 

 

It's a mixed bag. There are a number of posters who think their methods or feels are all there is, some who live or die by data and nothing else, and many in between who help create pretty enjoyable discussions, add context that might otherwise be missed, and end up contributing a lot to the forums. This site is absurdly good in terms of what can be gleaned given how muddled trying to figure anything out about the game can be on the internet at large.

[golfer07840]

On 1/10/2024 at 2:02 PM, Dave230 said:

 

Agreed with this. Have thought this for a while. I think the issue with Brad Faxon sometimes is that he was such a brilliant putter himself, one of the best of all-time, I get the impression from his tuition it's like 'see, it's easy! Don't think about it too much!'... but not everyone is as talented as him, or have that level of feel and hand eye co-ordination. If you do then that can work for you, but if you're not a natural like the vast majority of people who play golf, then sometimes you need a different approach

 

Agree here and this thought is often why great players, in any sport, rarely make great coaches. 

 

Because they can't grasp why the players they are coaching can't do what they did. Like you said they sit there and go "it's so easy, just do this." And they get very frustrated.  

[RobS]

If Faxon and Fawcett had a real discussion, they would largely be in agreement on putting. Faxon is not anti stats/analytics.  He's on record saying he was interested in all of his stats.  When strokes gained putting was introduced, he called it "an evolution in how we understand the game" and that it "moves us well beyond where we have been in the past in our ability to measure, teach and explain putting performance".  He, however, didn't want to record and think about stats while he was on the golf course.  It was part of his philosophy to maintain a high confidence level and believe he could make any putt.  I'm pretty sure that Faxon's comment about hitting a putt aggressive enough to have to mark a comeback putt is based on his confidence and ability to make a 3'-5' putt and not an all or nothing philosophy where he's willing to risk going 8'-10' by trying to hole a downhill 30' putt.

 

 Fawcett's philosophy is to mitigate risk and manage expectations.  Statistically speaking, an average tour player is going to 3 putt almost twice as often as they 1 putt from 30' if they are hitting the putt hard enough to roll just 4' by the hole.  That's the rationale behind Fawcett's claim that a putt that finishes short can be a good putt.  Fawcett simply preaches not to putt so aggressively that you are introducing a 3 putt while at the same time setting expectations that a 2 putt from distance shouldn't be a disappointment. 

 

This is sort of a silly argument about a 1' short putt being better than a 4' long putt and vice versa.  No one is saying to leave putts 1' short from inside 10' to lock up a 2 putt and conversely Faxon isn't saying it's ok to risk a 3 putt for a low percentage long putt putt make.  I don't know what Faxon's make rate was from 3'-5' but I'm guessing it was exceptionally high.  If he and Fawcett were analyzing stats together, Fawcett would likely have no problem with Faxon hitting his putts slightly further past the hole than the average tour player.

 

 

Edited January 12 by RobS

[golfortennis]

On 1/11/2024 at 9:13 AM, MattyO1984 said:

Just as I was reading through this, I remember an old quote from Ebbe Skovdahl who was for a time manger of Aberdeen Football Club:-

 

"Statistics are like mini-skirts - they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts". He probably be cancelled for saying something like that these days but it sums things up quite well. 

 

I had heard : "People use stats like drunks use lampposts.  For support, not illumination"  But that mini-skirt one is good as well.  

 

 

[LeoLeo99]

I can't believe a golf feud is about putting and speed.  LOL.  

 

I remember many years ago as a kid hearing Jack say that he preferred to putt so the ball died at hole and maybe it would fall in the side if it wasn't right in the hole while Watson preferred putting a little more aggressively.  It didn't turn into a feud.  

[golfortennis]

34 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

I can't believe a golf feud is about putting and speed.  LOL.  

 

I remember many years ago as a kid hearing Jack say that he preferred to putt so the ball died at hole and maybe it would fall in the side if it wasn't right in the hole while Watson preferred putting a little more aggressively.  It didn't turn into a feud.  

 

But they were just talking.  This has *stats.*  Stats are a requirement for a "feud."  Refer to the relevant wrx laws. 

 

Ferguson may even have info on some marital troubles to explain some of this... 

[Louis_Posture]

My observation is that putts of 20 feet or less are best rolled at a speed which would leave a miss 1 to 2 feet beyond the hole.

For putts of more than 20 feet leaving the ball 1 to 2 feet short or long or to the side is good.

 

[Soloman1]

I’ll see if I can dig up the stats, but you should try to make the first putt, then try to make the next one if it didn’t go in.

[LeoLeo99]

24 minutes ago, Soloman1 said:

I’ll see if I can dig up the stats, but you should try to make the first putt, then try to make the next one if it didn’t go in.

I'm a mathematician and I can confirm this strategy.  

[Mcgeeno]

5 hours ago, RobS said:

If Faxon and Fawcett had a real discussion, they would largely be in agreement on putting. Faxon is not anti stats/analytics.  He's on record saying he was interested in all of his stats.  When strokes gained putting was introduced, he called it "an evolution in how we understand the game" and that it "moves us well beyond where we have been in the past in our ability to measure, teach and explain putting performance".  He, however, didn't want to record and think about stats while he was on the golf course.  It was part of his philosophy to maintain a confidence high confidence level and believe he could make any putt.  I'm pretty sure that Faxon's comment about hitting a putt aggressive enough to have to mark a comeback putt is based on his confidence and ability to make a 3'-5' putt and not an all or nothing philosophy where he's willing to risk going 8'-10' by trying to hole a downhill 30' putt.

 

 Fawcett's philosophy is to mitigate risk and manage expectations.  Statistically speaking, an average tour player is going to 3 putt almost twice as often as they 1 putt from 30' if they are hitting the putt hard enough to roll just 4' by the hole.  That's the rationale behind Fawcett's claim that a putt that finishes short can be a good putt.  Fawcett simply preaches not to putt so aggressively that you are introducing a 3 putt while at the same time setting expectations that a 2 putt from distance shouldn't be a disappointment. 

 

This is sort of a silly argument about a 1' short putt being better than a 4' long putt and vice versa.  No one is saying to leave putts 1' short from inside 10' to lock up a 2 putt and conversely Faxon isn't saying it's ok to risk a 3 putt for a low percentage long putt putt make.  I don't know what Faxon's make rate was from 3'-5' but I'm guessing it was exceptionally high.  If he and Fawcett were analyzing stats together, Fawcett would likely have no problem with Faxon hitting his putts slightly further past the hole than the average tour player.

 

 

 

Great post. Much more nuanced and detailed than I ever could.

 

I understand the argument from both sides and admittedly lean towards the data end. I used a whole bunch of data (among other things) to go from a 5 handicap when I joined here over a decade ago to a plus 1.7 index as of this year. 

 

A 50 foot lag putt nussling up to a foot short of the hole for me is an amazing stroke. The 'never up never in' mantra hasnt stuck with me since I was a child and definitely does not ring true with what I see good players do.

 

Really good shots might not go in or fit with what we used to think many years ago.

[golfortennis]

2 hours ago, LeoLeo99 said:

I'm a mathematician and I can confirm this strategy.  

 

But are you a CEO?

[bladehunter]

21 hours ago, RCGA said:

 

I used to follow Lou and put a lot of stock into these tweets. But then I realized, literally, what is the point of this information?

 

It just made me more apathetic towards putting. My three-putt rate when way up because, hey, 5-6ft ain't bad according to Lou. And it must be a good result even though it didn't even sniff the hole. I mean, why even bother reading the green if you'd happy with that as a result? 

Amen.  I do not believe that their spiels jive with certain personalities. Acceptance isn’t something that driven folks do well.  Accepting failure is the basic gist of all that teaching.  

[bladehunter]

16 hours ago, Mcgeeno said:

As in most things with life, people typically dislike what they dont understand.

 

I dont think this site is the data driven type of place lol. Its kinda still a 'drive for show putt for dough' type of vibe. 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully disagree.  I’ve paid for decade for a couple years now.  Studied. I understand it. I just don’t agree with the mindset.  And I don’t like the results.  I do like the stats interface. And I do enjoy the info on tour and elite am stats.  For comparison sakes.  It’s nice to know where the tip top ceiling is while raising your own floor. But I don’t believe that even half the world’s best use a similar system to achieve those heights.  Studying the organic data  and acting as if the knowledge of the data and playing toward it will produce better data , is two different things.   I believe the best are trying to make most putts.  And they stop the ball around the hole while doing that.  Telling ams that they can’t make those , so they adopt the strategy to intentionally miss to achieve the same stat - isn’t the same thing.  

[Mcfly]

17 hours ago, Mcgeeno said:

As in most things with life, people typically dislike what they dont understand.

 

I dont think this site is the data driven type of place lol. Its kinda still a 'drive for show putt for dough' type of vibe. 

 

 

 

 

I dislike logarithms.

 

 

[Soloman1]

16 minutes ago, Mcfly said:

I dislike logarithms.

 

 

 

And some people are the opposite, they dislike the exponential scale.

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, Soloman1 said:

 

And some people are the opposite, they dislike the exponential scale.

I’m personally an onomatopoeia man myself.  

[LeoLeo99]

7 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

But are you a CEO?

 

 

Funny enough, I played with a CEO last week at a very nice pvt club.  Guy in his 70s.  Long hitter.  Much more of a hitter than swinger.  Very strong man for his age.  We played from the big boy tees where he often shoots his age.  

[MS.71]

On 1/12/2024 at 8:28 AM, RobS said:

If Faxon and Fawcett had a real discussion, they would largely be in agreement on putting. Faxon is not anti stats/analytics.  He's on record saying he was interested in all of his stats.  When strokes gained putting was introduced, he called it "an evolution in how we understand the game" and that it "moves us well beyond where we have been in the past in our ability to measure, teach and explain putting performance".  He, however, didn't want to record and think about stats while he was on the golf course.  It was part of his philosophy to maintain a high confidence level and believe he could make any putt.  I'm pretty sure that Faxon's comment about hitting a putt aggressive enough to have to mark a comeback putt is based on his confidence and ability to make a 3'-5' putt and not an all or nothing philosophy where he's willing to risk going 8'-10' by trying to hole a downhill 30' putt.

 

 Fawcett's philosophy is to mitigate risk and manage expectations.  Statistically speaking, an average tour player is going to 3 putt almost twice as often as they 1 putt from 30' if they are hitting the putt hard enough to roll just 4' by the hole.  That's the rationale behind Fawcett's claim that a putt that finishes short can be a good putt.  Fawcett simply preaches not to putt so aggressively that you are introducing a 3 putt while at the same time setting expectations that a 2 putt from distance shouldn't be a disappointment. 

 

This is sort of a silly argument about a 1' short putt being better than a 4' long putt and vice versa.  No one is saying to leave putts 1' short from inside 10' to lock up a 2 putt and conversely Faxon isn't saying it's ok to risk a 3 putt for a low percentage long putt putt make.  I don't know what Faxon's make rate was from 3'-5' but I'm guessing it was exceptionally high.  If he and Fawcett were analyzing stats together, Fawcett would likely have no problem with Faxon hitting his putts slightly further past the hole than the average tour player.

 

 

This is the only post on here that's come close to what DECADE is proposing. Fawcett says your front/back dispersion is ~4" (not on all putts obviously but it's just a decent starting point) and so instead of being 1 ft to 5 ft past the hole every time, he'd rather you be 1 ft short to 3 ft past the hole every time, which means he wants you to attempt to hit the putt 12-18 inches past the hole. Which is EVERYONE'S "make speed" if they're coaching you. It's just the reality of our skill level and ability to control speed. And that if we're afraid of leaving it short and we blast it past the hole to guarantee a look at the hole, more often than not that will lead to more 3 putts because outside of 3' is when make percent starts dropping from 98-99%. I believe his data showed Faxon left 20-25% of putts short which is PRECISELY THE AMOUNT FAWCETT WANTS. About one out of every 4 putts will end up short of the hole if you truly are aiming for the "right" speed because of the variance in our speed control. It's just the acceptance that leaving putts short is ok in the grand scheme of things and when it happens your thought shouldn't be "I didn't give it a chance I need to hit this next one harder to guarantee it's past the hole." And of course on putts inside 10 ft that 4' dispersion tightens up (theoretically...haha) and so if the miss pattern is 3ft deep then make speed at 18" past the hole means they all end up at or past the hole and still within 98-99% 2nd putt make percentage.

[mbb86]

On 1/12/2024 at 9:28 AM, RobS said:

If Faxon and Fawcett had a real discussion, they would largely be in agreement on putting. Faxon is not anti stats/analytics.  He's on record saying he was interested in all of his stats.  When strokes gained putting was introduced, he called it "an evolution in how we understand the game" and that it "moves us well beyond where we have been in the past in our ability to measure, teach and explain putting performance".  He, however, didn't want to record and think about stats while he was on the golf course.  It was part of his philosophy to maintain a high confidence level and believe he could make any putt.  I'm pretty sure that Faxon's comment about hitting a putt aggressive enough to have to mark a comeback putt is based on his confidence and ability to make a 3'-5' putt and not an all or nothing philosophy where he's willing to risk going 8'-10' by trying to hole a downhill 30' putt.

 

 Fawcett's philosophy is to mitigate risk and manage expectations.  Statistically speaking, an average tour player is going to 3 putt almost twice as often as they 1 putt from 30' if they are hitting the putt hard enough to roll just 4' by the hole.  That's the rationale behind Fawcett's claim that a putt that finishes short can be a good putt.  Fawcett simply preaches not to putt so aggressively that you are introducing a 3 putt while at the same time setting expectations that a 2 putt from distance shouldn't be a disappointment. 

 

This is sort of a silly argument about a 1' short putt being better than a 4' long putt and vice versa.  No one is saying to leave putts 1' short from inside 10' to lock up a 2 putt and conversely Faxon isn't saying it's ok to risk a 3 putt for a low percentage long putt putt make.  I don't know what Faxon's make rate was from 3'-5' but I'm guessing it was exceptionally high.  If he and Fawcett were analyzing stats together, Fawcett would likely have no problem with Faxon hitting his putts slightly further past the hole than the average tour player.

 

 

 

Your middle paragraph is the correct take. I can't "prove" it with scientific studies, but I work professionally in data science and have played amateur golf at a high level for most of my life. I would bet my life this is very close to the correct answer. 

 

These rules apply to a good player (think scratch or better)

- Inside 20 feet, you really should not be missing putts short almost ever. From 20 feet, a putt that gets to the hole should have at least a 10-15% chance of going in, and you cannot afford to flush 1/10th of a shot down the drain on a relatively straightforward 20 footer. 

If you speed control is not good enough to reliably get a 20 footer to the hole without running it 5 feet past, then your problem isn't getting it to the hole, it's the fact that you don't have good speed control. 

 

- Outside 30 feet, your only goal is not 3 putting. If it happens to hit the hole and go in, great. Anything inside 3 feet is a win. Yes ideally you'll be about 12'' long. But 2 feet shot from 30 feet is not a terrible result. If you need to make 30 footers to win, you're probably not hitting the ball close enough to score anyway. 

 

- In 20-30 feet, it really depends on the characteristics of the putt. If it's some kind of crazy slope where a 3 putt is very easy if you get too cute, then yeah you should be thinking 3 putt avoidance. If it's dead flat or slightly uphill, then you should be in make mode and your speed control needs to be good enough to not 3 putt when trying to make it. 

 

Same general concept should apply to most handicaps, except adjusting the thresholds. For example, a 30 handicapper probably should never leave putts inside 10 feet short, but the same 30 handicapper leaving an 18 footer 6'' short is not a "loss". The reason it matters less is the 30 handicappers speed control is (i) not as good as a scratch, so they can't reliably hit it 0-3 feet long, (ii) it's on line less often so not going in very often even if it gets to the hole and (iii) they won't make the 4 foot come backer if they hit it that far past. 

 

the last thing I'd mention is the 1 putt maximizing speed (i.e. speed at which one 1 putts the most often) from like 6-25 feet is almost certainly *not* the one that minimizes 3 putts or minimizes the expected number of strokes. Those are probably 3 different speeds. And depending on the context of the round, that can matter. 

If you're an average-ish player in the field playing a US open qualifier type scenario, you really should be hitting putts according to the 1 putt maximizing speed. That maximizes your chance of 1 putts and probably gives you the best chance at going low and making it through. There is absolutely 0 difference between shooting 72 and 74 in that type of scenario because 72 is almost never qualifying. But 72 vs 70? Big difference. 70 can easily sneak you into the last spot or a playoff. 

So when I play those type of tournaments, I am definitely putting a little more aggressive than average from 10-25 feet because I know my only chance of making it through is probably to luck into a couple of those dropping. I don't hit it good enough to beat a whole field of college kids without a couple of putts also going my way. 

 

On the other hand, if I'm playing my club championship I probably don't need to be as aggressive. I can play a pretty average round and don't need to make a bunch of 25 footers to keep myself in contention. 

 

Edited January 13 by mbb86

[golfortennis]

1 hour ago, mbb86 said:

 

On the other hand, if I'm playing my club championship I probably don't need to be as aggressive. I can play a pretty average round and don't need to make a bunch of 25 footers to keep myself in contention. 

 

 

And why would that be if I may ask?

[mbb86]

29 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

And why would that be if I may ask?

 

In a US open qualifier, I'm near the field average for skill and need to shoot a very above average round to have a chance of getting through (normally a ~+5 differential to get through a local qualifier). Best way to maximize my chance of going fairly low is make sure I'm getting putts to the hole inside 30 feet (albeit you can't be totally reckless). I will have no chance at getting through if I'm not getting pretty much everything to the hole inside 30 feet.  

 

In my club championship, I'm ~2 shots better than the 2nd best player in the field. So especially in the early going, I need to not 3 putt more than I need to be super aggressive in the 20-30 foot range. Winning by 4 or 5 makes no difference to me. But if I have a couple careless 3 putts, I've probably let the field back into a tournament that should be a snoozefest. 

 

[golfortennis]

20 hours ago, mbb86 said:

 

In a US open qualifier, I'm near the field average for skill and need to shoot a very above average round to have a chance of getting through (normally a ~+5 differential to get through a local qualifier). Best way to maximize my chance of going fairly low is make sure I'm getting putts to the hole inside 30 feet (albeit you can't be totally reckless). I will have no chance at getting through if I'm not getting pretty much everything to the hole inside 30 feet.  

 

In my club championship, I'm ~2 shots better than the 2nd best player in the field. So especially in the early going, I need to not 3 putt more than I need to be super aggressive in the 20-30 foot range. Winning by 4 or 5 makes no difference to me. But if I have a couple careless 3 putts, I've probably let the field back into a tournament that should be a snoozefest. 

 

 

Which is as I expected.  You're in a rarefied air of player first of all, and in a one round scenario, yes, putts getting made are the difference.  In no small part because at that level of play, putts are essentially the only area you can make up ground.  Very few guys are losing balls OB, they are hitting the same number of greens, so you really only have putting as a differentiator.  

 

As you say, in a different scenario 3 putt avoidance is a bigger key, and over a large sample size, for most players, that will play out.

 

The other question would be how often do you drill a putt you were trying to make 4-5 past?