Brad Faxon vs Scott Fawcett: Feel vs Data driven?

[Trafford_CC]

I don't think it's possible to have a discussion about putting speed and not include capture rate/relative hole size.  Capture rate plays a huge factor.  A putt with "perfect" speed arrives at a hole that is 4 1/4".  A putt that is 2' past arrives at a hole 1.9" in relative size.  3' - 1.4" and 4' -0.9" 

That's not stat or feel driven.  It's math.   

 

[Rearviewmirror]

On 1/11/2024 at 10:31 AM, hollabachgt said:

 

That is an issue I find in common among many of these heavy data based strategies. The data they have on hand is all from the PGA Tour. Trying to apply Tour level data to a 18 handicap playing their local county muni is like trying to apply Formula 1 data to competitive hot dog eating.

 

About the only thing you can take from PGA tour statistics is deriving expectations and limits. If a tour player only gets up and down less than 60% of the time, then why the hell should I Joe Hacker expect to do any better?

This is one of the main reasons I really enjoy Lou Stagner's output as he's looking across a range of player skills.

[tacklingdummy]

2 hours ago, Trafford_CC said:

I don't think it's possible to have a discussion about putting speed and not include capture rate/relative hole size.  Capture rate plays a huge factor.  A putt with "perfect" speed arrives at a hole that is 4 1/4".  A putt that is 2' past arrives at a hole 1.9" in relative size.  3' - 1.4" and 4' -0.9" 

That's not stat or feel driven.  It's math.   

 

 

I have thought a lot about capture rate of the hole specifically for short putts based on speed a lot. The hole does shrink the more speed that is put on the ball. However, what that data doesn't take into account is the ability of the ball to hold a line or have less break with more speed mainly on shorter putts. Also, you have to take into account with poor bumpy greens and grainy greens the ball wanders more on putts with less conviction. In my opinion, It brings in a lot more variance if you try to die the ball into the hole on shorter putts. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 14 by tacklingdummy

[North Texas]

On 1/12/2024 at 12:14 AM, iBanesto said:

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

 

It all adds up on the final scorecard.

 

 

Your post reminds me of the time I heard Harvey Penick talk about "never up, never in". 

 

He talked about hearing people say 100% of the putts you leave short don't go in. Then he said, "And 100% of the putts that go past the hole don't go in either".

 

He was a proponent of dying the ball at the hole. I've done that ever since and am more than satisfied with my putting. 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, North Texas said:

 

Your post reminds me of the time I heard Harvey Penick talk about "never up, never in". 

 

He talked about hearing people say 100% of the putts you leave short don't go in. Then he said, "And 100% of the putts that go past the hole don't go in either".

 

He was a proponent of dying the ball at the hole. I've done that ever since and am more than satisfied with my putting. 

Like most things in life this does not have an absolute answer.  The phrase “when taken in moderation “ comes to mind.

 

Yes, a 20-30’ putt left 6”short can be considered a good putt.  But if you make a habit of it and leave all putts short chronically it’s not a good thing.

Edited January 15 by Shilgy

[jvincent]

Did anybody in this thread happen to catch what Rory did today?  😈

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, jvincent said:

Did anybody in this thread happen to catch what Rory did today?  😈

Golf…..golf happened.  
 

 

Or…in keeping with the thread….he should have left that first putt short so he could tap in and get into a playoff.🤔

[bladehunter]

9 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

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?

This goes back to what I said earlier. Decade seems to help 5-20 handicap guys cleanup things.  I don’t think it works for those of us who need to make putts to improve score. Remember. All scenarios are one round. He just adds those one rounds up.  
 

The post you quoted here makes perfect sense to me.  If playing the club championship, what you need to do is  simply not beat yourself.  In any USga qualifier ( mid am version is  all I’ve played in ) you have to go berserk to get a spot. You aren’t trying to shoot 73. You’re trying to shoot 67. You may shoot 75 trying to do that but someone is going low.  Likely several somebody’s.  .  Fawcetts ideas won’t get you there. He may get you a 72.4 average vs a 73 average over a long period. . But it won’t include those low numbers when you need it. His approach ideas are way too conservative for good approach players. Same for putting.  

[TonyRo]

9 hours ago, bladehunter said:

This goes back to what I said earlier. Decade seems to help 5-20 handicap guys cleanup things.  I don’t think it works for those of us who need to make putts to improve score.

Yeah, guys like Will Zalatoris, Keith Mitchell, Bryson, and hundreds of college teams should just give it up. A bunch of 5 hcp stiffs that can't make putts. This post is one of my favorites of the year. 

[North Texas]

Mr. Penick has yet to proven wrong. As Rory found out 😉

[bladehunter]

53 minutes ago, TonyRo said:

Yeah, guys like Will Zalatoris, Keith Mitchell, Bryson, and hundreds of college teams should just give it up. A bunch of 5 hcp stiffs that can't make putts. This post is one of my favorites of the year. 

Where’s the proof that they are getting better because of it ?  This is the rub.  Using it isn’t proof.  It’s only proof that it’s being used. You’d need a controlled test with the same player - blind ( impossible ) playing seasons with and without it. 
 

 

ps-  Willy Zs best move is the anti yip putter  he has now. That’s worth 10x the fawcett preaching.  

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, TonyRo said:

 and hundreds of college teams should just give it up

 

LOL, how many college teams are using it?

 

Never seen a reference to "hundreds" - maybe you can link those numbers/schools.

[Hawkeye77]

16 hours ago, North Texas said:

 

Your post reminds me of the time I heard Harvey Penick talk about "never up, never in". 

 

He talked about hearing people say 100% of the putts you leave short don't go in. Then he said, "And 100% of the putts that go past the hole don't go in either".

 

He was a proponent of dying the ball at the hole. I've done that ever since and am more than satisfied with my putting. 

 

I just try and make the putt, and find that mindset seems closer with "dying into the hole" (although it's not my thought) than intentionally thinking about being strong by any distance.  I used to subscribe to the "enough speed to go 'x' past the hole" and it didn't work for me as well as just working on speed/reads and understanding how welcoming the hole can be vs. unwelcome with aim/speed combos.

[TonyRo]

I have only what the website says:

 

 

Testimonials from Notre Dame, Columbia, Texas State, Oklahoma State, etc. If I was a betting man, most pros have talked to Scott about DECADE to at least try and understand what he has worked on. Stewart Cink was talking about it this weekend, but didn't explicitly mention it by name if I recall correctly. 

 

BTW, I am not an endorser of the product, I'm not a close personal friend of Scott Fawcett, etc. I don't care what people think of it or if they use it or not. 

[TonyRo]

21 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Where’s the proof that they are getting better because of it ?  This is the rub.  Using it isn’t proof.  It’s only proof that it’s being used. You’d need a controlled test with the same player - blind ( impossible ) playing seasons with and without it. 
 

 

ps-  Willy Zs best move is the anti yip putter  he has now. That’s worth 10x the fawcett preaching.  

I think my statement is easier to back up through empirical evidence than your original statement that I responded to.  🙃 If anything, it feels like DECADE is mostly meant for very serious players trying to shave a few strokes off through good course management and smart decisions. 

 

Don't disagree on the putter! 😁

[bladehunter]

2 minutes ago, TonyRo said:

I have only what the website says:

 

 

Testimonials from Notre Dame, Columbia, Texas State, Oklahoma State, etc. If I was a betting man, most pros have talked to Scott about DECADE to at least try and understand what he has worked on. Stewart Cink was talking about it this weekend, but didn't explicitly mention it by name if I recall correctly. 

 

BTW, I am not an endorser of the product, I'm not a close personal friend of Scott Fawcett, etc. I don't care what people think of it or if they use it or not. 

Ive paid for decade for over 2 years now. Still am. Used it a whole season.  Simply don’t find the root ideals of it useful.  To use the decision tree you have to accept the premise that all shots are accidental. Out of your control.  You measure the dispersion on flat calm  range and calculate from there. That’s not golf.  Using his math , my approach aim was way more conservative than normal.  Stats showed increased 3 putts from this , and less GIR. I essentially was hitting my “ target “ often. Which was away form the hole.  And the misses were wider still.  This accidental miss near the hole he speaks of , never happened.  And my mental game started picking up speed downhill like a snowball headed for hell.     One day I just stopped.   Cold turkey.  GIR shot up , 3 putts back down , scores of course back down.  I still pay because the cost is competitive with other stats apps. And I like the interface.  But I don’t use his approach putt or shot ideas.  

I only type that to show that I’m not dogging on something I haven’t used.  I’m well vested in the idea.  And it simply isn’t good for a player that doesn’t have an approach miss issue. It never helped my tee game. And putting ( my weakness ) was only helped by a yip free design , much like Willy Z.  

 

The positives are the comparison stats.  I do enjoy seeing what I’m good at highlighted. And I do like seeing where the goal is for my weaknesses.  But the way to improve them is to get better. Not simply thinking about trouble and trying to play away from it.  

[bladehunter]

11 minutes ago, TonyRo said:

I think my statement is easier to back up through empirical evidence than your original statement that I responded to.  🙃 If anything, it feels like DECADE is mostly meant for very serious players trying to shave a few strokes off through good course management and smart decisions. 

 

Don't disagree on the putter! 😁

There’s the disconnect from my post to yours. “ better players shaving a few strokes off “.  That’s not how it works.  You can’t shave a few strokes off at the plus level. Thats why I said 5-20 handicap.  At the plus level you’re trying to save fractions  of a stroke.  You’re not going to drop scoring average from 73 to 69 without gaining 40 yards off the tee , or going from a -4 strokes gained putter to a +1 strokes gained putter -overall etc. .    But a 15 handicap can drop 3-4 shots off his average easy as pie if he learns how to stop hitting balls OB , or stop 3 putting 5 greens a round.  
 

 

[TonyRo]

30 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

There’s the disconnect from my post to yours. “ better players shaving a few strokes off “.

Totally true, that was lazy on my part. But I think you can see the opposite side as well. Not a ton of weekend 20 hcps are going to even know what DECADE is, let alone spend the time to enter data, track strokes gained, etc. Based on what I've seen and heard, it's use base is probably skewed towards better players trying to gain and edge. You're definitely right that it's never going to be a massive thing for players who are that good.

[Hawkeye77]

30 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Ive paid for decade for over 2 years now. Still am. Used it a whole season.  Simply don’t find the root ideals of it useful.  To use the decision tree you have to accept the premise that all shots are accidental. Out of your control.  You measure the dispersion on flat calm  range and calculate from there. That’s not golf.  Using his math , my approach aim was way more conservative than normal.  Stats showed increased 3 putts from this , and less GIR. I essentially was hitting my “ target “ often. Which was away form the hole.  And the misses were wider still.  This accidental miss near the hole he speaks of , never happened.  And my mental game started picking up speed downhill like a snowball headed for hell.     One day I just stopped.   Cold turkey.  GIR shot up , 3 putts back down , scores of course back down.  I still pay because the cost is competitive with other stats apps. And I like the interface.  But I don’t use his approach putt or shot ideas.  

I only type that to show that I’m not dogging on something I haven’t used.  I’m well vested in the idea.  And it simply isn’t good for a player that doesn’t have an approach miss issue. It never helped my tee game. And putting ( my weakness ) was only helped by a yip free design , much like Willy Z.  

 

The positives are the comparison stats.  I do enjoy seeing what I’m good at highlighted. And I do like seeing where the goal is for my weaknesses.  But the way to improve them is to get better. Not simply thinking about trouble and trying to play away from it.  

 

I was around 8 - 10, it's been so long I can't remember and paid for and looked into it when it had pretty much just come out and was getting touted on here.  I pretty much play the same course 90% of the time and even when playing other courses found the concepts interesting but nothing mind blowing.  I agree on the approach play and conservative aspect and frankly, the off the tee metrics were pretty obvious things.  Didn't do much with it.  I watched a vid somewhere last year with him out on the course with a couple of aspiring pros and nothing was all that "light bulb" when watching so I didn't feel I'd missed anything by not keeping out with it.  I actually don't see the system being all that much of a game changer for mid to high handicappers and I'm sitting at 5.9 so the association tells me this morning and that's all been down to better ball striking and short game.

 

Not sure "helping" a couple hundred college teams is the same as them actually paying for the service on an ongoing basis, but rather than nitpick, and in fairness, it sounds like a lot of them do so well done for Fawcett and I have to assume they feel like they are getting something out of it.  I almost hit the Iowa Hawkeyes men's golf coach with a drive last year (don't ask) - if by chance we get acquainted again, I'll ask him about this!

 

Many folks on here more metric oriented have reported success and it works well for them.  Like anything else, if something about it makes you better keep doing it.  

 

 

[bladehunter]

14 minutes ago, TonyRo said:

Totally true, that was lazy on my part. But I think you can see the opposite side as well. Not a ton of weekend 20 hcps are going to even know what DECADE is, let alone spend the time to enter data, track strokes gained, etc. Based on what I've seen and heard, it's use base is probably skewed towards better players trying to gain and edge. You're definitely right that it's never going to be a massive thing for players who are that good.

Oh I’ll agree there. Use is skewed our way because desperate times call for desperate measures 🤣.  Theres no more of a definition of insanity in practice than a plus handicap trying to run a business , parent a kid/s and keep a partner on top of trying to maintain much less improve a golf game he doesn’t have time for.  Driver sales prove this as well. 🤣.  But it’s never a one size fits all. 
 

and that’s my only point.  That it seems to be a crutch that helps some. Maybe it’s real depending on if you see it or not ?  But faxon  isn’t wrong either.  To him it’s a hindrance.  And I get that.  He sees the game as I do. Ball in hole.  The rest is just in the way.  He sees a shot. He tries to hit that shot. It’s that simple.  No mechanical thoughts on how. Just doing it. I’m the same.  Decade is one mechanical thought after another. And again. That probably works for some folks.  I’m not trashing it. I’m defending the opposing perspective.  Imperial data doesn’t  mean anything when the natural player beats you by 5. Fawcett would be on the champions tour now if stats beat  talent. In my opinion he oversells to college kids and under delivers.  And woefully undersells to the higher handicap retired male who can afford it , and would improve from it.  My 2 cents.  

Edited January 15 by bladehunter
Sorry mods. I said the T word in context not the person. Edited.

[Hstead]

I paid for and used the system for a year.  The stats didn't match my strengths and weaknesses at all.  I rarely three putted and almost singularly missed past the hole.  Scott wanted me to hit putts softer and "miss short 50% of the time from 20 feet and longer".  My putting worsened quite a bit as I was missing short more often for sure.  I also three putted more and made fewer long putts.  

 

I agree too on the approach shots being very conservative.  I have had discussions with multiple tour pros and they do not all play the way Scott preaches.  One tour pro has had conversations with both Will Z and Bryson and both told him they are not using decade targets and are aiming dead at the pin way more often than Scotts system.

 

I believe being committed to your shot is way more important than "playing the correct shot" according to stats.  I pick a club and shot I know I can hit and have confidence that I can hit and when I am over the shot commit to it 100%.  The decade aim spot does not always fit what I am feeling, which can change from day to day and even hole to hole.  Depends on the day and the shot, I play what I feel I can execute.  If I am not committed to the shot and it is the "correct" statistical shot, I am probably not going to hit a good shot.

 

My experience and my thoughts.  Which coincide with some really good players that I respect including some Ryder cup guys.

Edited January 15 by Hstead

[PedronNiall]

From the discussions I've seen it appears its strength is in keeping players from making big numbers, which is certainly something decent sticks chasing a qualifier or a card or going all out for a collegiate tournament might do. A player like Homa says that was partly the key for him, just shooting for the middle of greens as DECADE suggests. Playing the statistically safe route for all shots could make a moderate to good golfer better on average by avoiding blow ups, but maybe it lacks what's needed to mirror the kind of scoring the best golfers produce. 

 

There are some very good points in here about how the system in theory aligns with Faxon's ideas. There are also some good points about how for all the testimonials and buy in there's not a lot of solid presentation as to Decade stat-based play on the green or elsewhere being in line with what the very best players do. Considering how heavily the system relies on data it should be easy to show expected changes in strokes gained in all areas for players at different levels who adopt it, including strokes gained putting. It would be hard to directly compare it to Faxon's method because of the small sample size available for the latter, but it should be easy to show that it offers outcomes that are X% better than Tour average and within Y% of top Tour stats.

 

Capture those kinds of comparisons and if they come out in favor of DECADE then there's really no arguing about how it works at the highest level. Without that it's just speculation and it's hard to say better players who employed it and found themselves playing worse are wrong when their scores & stats back it up. 

[Hawkeye77]

On 1/14/2024 at 1:40 PM, Trafford_CC said:

I don't think it's possible to have a discussion about putting speed and not include capture rate/relative hole size.  Capture rate plays a huge factor.  A putt with "perfect" speed arrives at a hole that is 4 1/4".  A putt that is 2' past arrives at a hole 1.9" in relative size.  3' - 1.4" and 4' -0.9" 

That's not stat or feel driven.  It's math.   

 

But you are using it wrong - if you buy into the capture rate you are talking about and just using the two feet to four feet past then you are ignoring that using capture rate as your metric (not saying I agree with doing it, just saying) would suggest speed that actually goes past the hole a little bit is the proper speed - other things can interfere at "perfect speed" that a little more speed may avoid.    

 

Edited January 15 by Hawkeye77

[RCGA]

9 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

But you are using it wrong - if you buy into the capture rate you are talking about and just using the two feet to four feet past then you are ignoring that using capture rate as your metric (not saying I agree with doing it, just saying) would suggest speed that actually goes past the hole a little bit is the proper speed - other things can interfere at "perfect speed" that a little more speed may avoid.    

 

 

Hitting it 2ft past also gives you a free read on the comebacker. 

 

I know even mentioning that would cause the stats guy's blood pressure to spike, but it's the truth. 

[TonyRo]

16 minutes ago, RCGA said:

I know even mentioning that would cause the stats guy's blood pressure to spike, but it's the truth. 

A stats guy will tell you that you're missing basically zero 2' putts anyway, and that there isn't a reasonable stimp/percent slope combination where you're giving up the hole from 2' either. 😆

[Trafford_CC]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

But you are using it wrong - if you buy into the capture rate you are talking about and just using the two feet to four feet past then you are ignoring that using capture rate as your metric (not saying I agree with doing it, just saying) would suggest speed that actually goes past the hole a little bit is the proper speed - other things can interfere at "perfect speed" that a little more speed may avoid.    

 

No. Dying the ball at the hole is your greatest opportunity to sink a putt. If you hit a putt 2’ past, you’ve basically severely limited the size of the hole. That’s a mistake. And a poor putt. Relatively speaking. Poor compared to dying at hole speed. 

[Trafford_CC]

15 hours ago, RCGA said:

 

Hitting it 2ft past also gives you a free read on the comebacker. 

 

I know even mentioning that would cause the stats guy's blood pressure to spike, but it's the truth. 

You want a free read on a 2 ‘putt? 

Edited January 16 by Trafford_CC

[Hawkeye77]

23 minutes ago, Trafford_CC said:

No. Dying the ball at the hole is your greatest opportunity to sink a putt. If you hit a putt 2’ past, you’ve basically severely limited the size of the hole. That’s a mistake. And a poor putt. Relatively speaking. Poor compared to dying at hole speed. 

 

And as I said, talking about two feet past is an extreme so not sure why you are mentioning that again.

 

If you are talking about capture rate, again, your putt needs more than just perfect "die at the hole" speed, IMO, to give you more margin for error (for various things) to simply make more putts over time, not just an effective size of the hole number.  

[Chunkitgood]

On 1/10/2024 at 3:32 PM, Ferguson said:

Quick summary in pictures to wrap up my comments. 

 

 

You must be unaware of the concept of implicit knowledge.  It’s not too late to educate yourself.
 

The ball moves because force is applied to it.  Force is a vector with two components: speed (magnitude) and direction.

 

A ball struck with an insufficient force magnitude will miss the hole.  So will a ball struck with a force whose magnitude is too great.

 

It does appear that humans tend to underestimate the magnitude of the force necessary to hole a putt, which is determined both by distance and the magnitude and direction of the forces which the ball must overcome to reach the hole.  You could look at this as a perceptual or cognitive bias, but it is more probably best described as an evolved strategy of risk avoidance.  It is in essence an heuristic of cozying the ball up to the hole that is best used by people who lack the skill to accurately judge the force magnitude necessary.  Faxon would substitute an heuristic of hitting the ball farther than the unskilled golfer believes necessary.  The fallacy of his thinking is that a ball struck too hard has exactly the same chance of going in as one struck too easy: 0.

 

The solution is for the unskilled golfer to cozy the ball up to the hole, to avoid the three putt, and to aspire to be able to accurately judge the force magnitude required with practice.

 

Pros who you see play on tv have that skill, and whether their putts are too short or too long is irrelevant, distance left and slope left being what counts.  So tap ins on long putts show good judge of distance…like the announcers say.

 

As to Fawcett, it is unsound to claim probabilities for future events based on the sort of data I understand he uses.

 

 

[TiScape]

About to be  5 pages in 5 days on an almost 2 year old putting feud between Scott Fawcett and Brad Faxon… Wow, the extreme cold in most parts of the country has really gotten to ppl! 🤪