technology and putting

[Sam Sikes]

that is an interesting graph.  Look at the two major breaks in the data.  Roughly when the Titliest Professional Revolution and the Pro V1 Revolution took place, respectively.  

What it means, I dont know.

Personally I think it is easier to putt with a ProV1

[Jeff_Brauer]

Maybe it means the Pro V made them a little bit more accurate (or allowed them to approach with shorter distances)

This put them on a few more greens per tourney, but put them a little further from the hole, raising the putting average.

[Jim Nugent]

Maybe it means the Pro V made them a little bit more accurate (or allowed them to approach with shorter distances)

This put them on a few more greens per tourney, but put them a little further from the hole, raising the putting average.

I just checked the GIR stats, every five years going back to 1980.  They are pretty much the same.  Didn't see any real changes.  If the Pro V makes pro's more accurate, it is not showing up in GIR stats.  

[DMoriarty]

Do they include the putting stats for  Par 5's reached in two, or Par 4's reached in one?  One would think that as these numbers increase, the putting percentages might also rise.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Well, then my next theory is that they were just temporarily focused on bombing the driver to worry about accuracy.  Or maybe there was a learning curve on the ball.

[David Lott]

Seems to me that most of what is being written here and elsewhere on the so called improvement in putting is bunk. Technology has virtually no impact on putting, and may have less impact on other areas of the game than we think, at least if you define "impact" as changes in scoring.

If putting has gotten so much better from close in lately, why hasn’t scoring improved? Improved putting from under 10 feet create a big improvement in scoring, but if you factor out Norman at his pinnacle and Tiger now, scoring hasn’t improved materially.

Look at the PGA scoring statistics for the more successful players. There was a statistical improvement in scoring between 1985 and 1990, when technology wasn’t a factor, but this is almost certainly due to the arcane “adjusted” scoring system that the PGA instituted in 1987 to adjust scores to reflect variation from the performance of the field. See http://www.golfrankindex.com/sc-asa01.htm

Instead of speculating on the impact of the ball, or grooming or speed of greens, or quality of $300 putters over the Bulls-Eye, consider this.

Scoring Leaders:

2005: 68.66 (Woods)
2000: 67.79 (Woods)
1995: 69.06 (Norman)
1990 69.10 (Norman)
1985 70.36 (Pooley)

Scoring Runner Up:

2005: 69.84 (Singh)
2000: 69.25_(Mickelson)
1995: 69.59 (Elkington)
1990: 69.49 (Mize)
1985 70.44 (Mahaffey)

Scoring 10th Place:

2005: 69.84 (Love)
2000: 69.89 (Roberts)
1995 70.03 (Jacobsen)
1990: 70.09 (Mayfair)
1985: 70.93 (Stadler)

Scoring 25th Place:

2005: 70.32 (Cink, Elkington, Olberholzer T-23)
2000: 70.30 (K. Perry)
1995: 70.29 (Mayfair, Stricker T-24)
1990: 70.44 (Hoch)
1985: 71.20 (Zoeller, Kratzert, Koch T-23)

In short, from 1990-2005, the scoring average of the 25th place player has been nearly identical, a variation of only .15 shots from high to low.

The variation for the 10th place player has been .25 from high to low from 1990-2005.

The variation of the second place player has been .59 strokes, a slightly more significant number, but that is because of Mickelson in 2000. Discard that number and the scoring variation is .34 strokes, and the score trend for second place is higher not lower since 2000.

The variation from high to low for the leader has been 1.31 strokes.

Thus there has been an improvement in putting, but most of it is coming from a guy named Woods, who is scoring better than anyone ever has because he can put the ball in the hole from short and medium range under pressure.

I don’t think the PGA Tour putting statistics tell you very much about who the best putters are. Tiger is the best putter. Ask the guys who compete against him. It’s why he’s the best scorer, even though his selective schedule avoids some of the easier courses.

As for the rest of them, the greens may be smoother, there’s videotape and biomechanics, the ball may not deform or be more round and balanced to start with, the caddies may be more sober (players too), the greens may be more consistent from hole to hole, the galleries better controlled, the commentators more muffled, but it still takes guts and incredible discipline to get the ball in the hole putt after putt. Keeping those qualities over time is hard—only a few have done so. Nicklaus, Woods, Player, Palmer, Casper, Watson, Norman, Trevino and a few others all had it in the last 40 years, some longer than others.

Most players are grateful when a six footer goes in. These guys expected it.

Shotlink will give us some real data over the next decade, but until that I have to think the big improvement in short putting touted by some is unprovable, and very likely wrong. Is Pelz’ data really any good? The other data? And how do you measure the result when pressure is really on?

If putting were improved as much as is being asserted by some here, it would show in the scores.

Other Interesting Facts:

1988: First year that all of the top ten averaged under 70. (Norman led at 69.38, trailed by Beck, Kite, Lyle, Stewart, Crenshaw, Frost, Watson, Couples and Azinger.)

Number of Vardon Trophy winners averaging under 70 from 1965-1987: 3 (Casper in 1968, Trevino in 1980, Kite in 1981) Since 1987 every winner has averaged under 70, but of course the method of calculating the score changed.

Number of Vardon Trophies won by Jack Nicklaus: None [So much for the Vardon as an indicator]

Number of Vardon Trophies won by Tiger Woods: Six, including every year since 1997 but one [Vardon may tell something after all]

[Jason Topp]

David:

1.  The average tour course is probably 500 yards longer than it was 10 years ago

2.  The rough is deeper than it was 10 years ago

3.  Greens are firmer than they were 10 years ago

4.  The tour cuts pins closer to the edge of greens than they did 10 years ago.

Comparisons of scoring averages are meaningless and I strongly disagree with efforts to tout them in support of arguments that technology has negatively impacted the game.

I have not conducted a study of putting stats but others have.

Pelz found the distance where 50 percent of putts are holed to be 6 feet around 10-15 years ago.

His finding is corroborated by a study described in the book "Searching for the Perfect Golf Swing" that did a study in the 60's primarily in England but also using data from the US.

Current PGA Tour stats are readily available for comparison if you subscribe to shot link (which I no longer do).  The 50/50 point has moved out about 2 feet, which is a pretty significant change in the game.  This guess is confirmed in the forward to the 2005 introduction to Searching for the Perfect Golf Swing.

I do not know the cause of the change and I do not believe it has hurt the game much.  I do know that putting has improved.

[David Lott]

Jason:

It's hard to agree that scores are meaningless in a game where the object is the lowest score.

Mickelson apparently made 68% of six footers last year, per the Golf Digest article. Has he improved his result from this distance much because of technology or improved maintenance since 2000, when he was second in scoring average? From 10 years ago? I don't think so. His point in the article is that you should not leave yourself six footers because they are so difficult to make.

If he had improved his putting from 5-6 feet by 20%, his scoring would be better, regardless of the other factors, which are balanced by improved club technology, better fitness (maybe not in Phil's case), easier travel,etc. And his scoring isn't better. Nor is that of all but a few remarkable players.

My points are really pretty simple:

1. We should be very skeptical of the accuracy of the Pelz data and all other data that has become gospel fact without peer review. Pelz is in the business of selling books and articles about putting, and while he knows a lot, there's a whiff of the wacko about him.

2. Skepticism is merited because data is always slippery at best, but also because this is about putting, which is the ultimate head game.

3. We generally attribute too much of success to technology and mechanical factors, and not enough to talent, discipline and character. (Nicklaus/Weiskopf, Woods/Daly, etc.)

4. If players were really making 25% more 5-7 footers than 20 years ago, the scores would be lower, because there are--and always have been--a lot of putts of 5-10 feet, regardless of technology or course setup.

[Doug Siebert]

Dunno about the deeper rough and firmer greens today, some of the tournaments have such scrawny rough its no wonder they FLOG it, and the greens don't seem particularly firm either (the next favorite thing to a 350 yard drive for the average TV golf fan is a wedge sucked back 25 feet)

But moving the pins closer to the edges alone has the potential to offset any gain in putting due to truer greens.

[Brent Hutto]

David,

Try as we might, there's no way to look at scores today and scores 20 years ago and isolate the effect of one possible change. Certainly if players today make as many putts from eight feet as players then did from six feet, we'd expect scoring to be lower all other things being equal.

Since the rest of the game has not held static over the last 25 years, we can't draw any conclusion about putting from data about overall scores. In fact, I'd argue that other elements of the game have changed to a greater degree than putting. The ball is different, the drivers and shafts are different, the courses are longer, the pins are tucked, the players are stronger, the financial incentives are different and so forth and so on. Oh yes, and putting seems to have improved too.

[Jason Topp]

Jason:

It's hard to agree that scores are meaningless in a game where the object is the lowest score.

Mickelson apparently made 68% of six footers last year, per the Golf Digest article. Has he improved his result from this distance much because of technology or improved maintenance since 2000, when he was second in scoring average? From 10 years ago? I don't think so. His point in the article is that you should not leave yourself six footers because they are so difficult to make.

If he had improved his putting from 5-6 feet by 20%, his scoring would be better, regardless of the other factors, which are balanced by improved club technology, better fitness (maybe not in Phil's case), easier travel,etc. And his scoring isn't better. Nor is that of all but a few remarkable players.

My points are really pretty simple:

1. We should be very skeptical of the accuracy of the Pelz data and all other data that has become gospel fact without peer review. Pelz is in the business of selling books and articles about putting, and while he knows a lot, there's a whiff of the wacko about him.

2. Skepticism is merited because data is always slippery at best, but also because this is about putting, which is the ultimate head game.

3. We generally attribute too much of success to technology and mechanical factors, and not enough to talent, discipline and character. (Nicklaus/Weiskopf, Woods/Daly, etc.)

4. If players were really making 25% more 5-7 footers than 20 years ago, the scores would be lower, because there are--and always have been--a lot of putts of 5-10 feet, regardless of technology or course setup.

David:  

Points 1 and 2.  I agree that it is healthy to be skeptical about any data, but how could someone screw up counting the number of putts made from a particular distance?

3.  You could be right that we attribite too much to technology.  I am not doing that.  I do not know why more putts are being made nor do I care much.  I just know that they are.

4.  Brent's post responds to your point.

[David Lott]

Jason:

Two lawyers going at it--arguing what is ultimately unprovable. Time to agree to disagree, I think.

I note you are from the Twin Cities. I spent many years in Milwaukee, but  have retired to Beaufort, SC, where it is 70 degrees today and sunny.

Get in touch if you are ever in the Low Country near Beaufort, and we can play Chechessie or Old Tabby, both lovely, uncrowded courses.

[Jason Topp]

David:

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have heard that one before from a lawyer and usually it is a good one that recognizes impasse.      

Your courses sound wonderful.  I'd love to join you someday, particularly in light of the heavy snowfall we have gotten this week.