[Joe Bausch]

That is the title of a very interesting academic study carried out by two UPenn professors.  Here is the first part of the article:

When PGA Tour golfers from Tiger Woods down to the greenest rookie draw back their putters this week at the United States Open, their scorecards will be sabotaged by a force as human as it is irrational: risk intolerance.

Even the world’s best pros are so consumed with avoiding bogeys that they make putts for birdie discernibly less often than identical putts for par, according to a coming paper by two professors at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. After analyzing laser-precise data on more than 1.6 million Tour putts, they estimated that this preference for avoiding a negative (bogey) more than gaining an equal positive (birdie) — known in economics as loss aversion — costs the average pro about one stroke per 72-hole tournament, and the top 20 golfers about $1.2 million in prize money a year.

Contrary to most academic studies involving sports, at which athletes typically scoff, a handful of the Tour’s top putters did not dispute this finding. Simply put — if not putt — they admitted to being spooked enough by bogeys that they will ultimately cost themselves strokes to avoid them. Call it the bogeyman.

Read the rest of the article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/sports/golf/16study.html

[Paul Stephenson]

Well it's nice to know that some of my putting problems are confirmed by 1.6 million putts and 2 Ivy League professors. 

[mike_beene]

I guess they had to do a lot of afternoon research at the lab.

[Tom_Doak]

I believe that.  It was true for me when I still had a single-digit handicap; I made way more good putts to save par than I did to make birdies, and I would REALLY bear down to avoid a three-putt.

Come to think of it THAT could be the statistical difference they've found.  You are more likely to make a five-foot putt if you just ran it by from the other direction and it's a comebacker for par, than if your approach landed there and you have to feel the line to make your birdie.  I'd like to know if their data shows a statistically significant difference from 15 or 20 feet, where the comebacker is not part of the equation.

[Joe Bausch]

I've downloaded the paper they've written (it is long, 48 pages, and I will try to digest it on the ride up to Bethpage on Saturday), but early on they address your thoughts Tom, which I had as well:

[Paul Stephenson]

It's beyond the scope of their paper, but I'd love to see some analysis on the sucess rate of missed putts long v short.  I swear I three-putt more often when I run the first putt by as opposed to leaving it short the same distance from the hole.

[Joe Bausch]

It's beyond the scope of their paper, but I'd love to see some analysis on the sucess rate of missed putts long v short.  I swear I three-putt more often when I run the first putt by as opposed to leaving it short the same distance from the hole.

Your result is counter intuitive Paul, as most would believe going long on the first putt would give a better idea of the break on the come-backer.  However, I would love to see the analysis done.  What you think is true for you could be for most golfers.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm almost positive I'm more likely to miss a 3-4 foot second putt if the first one was short than if the first one went past the hole. However, it's not just that you've seen the ball roll past the hole. The one you leave 3-4 feet short was quite likely a poor stroke and the one you hit past the hole was likely good contact. I would guess a poor stroke tends to be followed by another poor stroke, don't you think?

[Ross Tuddenham]

I would imagine this fear of a bogey may increase for the 4-10 handicapper.  I say this because although this range of player can easily make par the amount of birdies they make is very few. 

So for them a bogey is relatively worse than it would be for the scratch and better player that can make a birdie to compensate, or for the higher handicapped player that gets a shot to compensate.

[Jason Topp]

I would expect that this finding is correct. 

This loss avoidance phenomenen is common in many other settings.  I recently read an interesting book that discussed many irrational things people do and loss avoidance was one of the strongest phenomena.  As one example - That is why warranties and appliance repair plans can be priced to be insanely profitable. 

[Tony_Muldoon]

I'm almost positive I'm more likely to miss a 3-4 foot second putt if the first one was short than if the first one went past the hole. However, it's not just that you've seen the ball roll past the hole. The one you leave 3-4 feet short was quite likely a poor stroke and the one you hit past the hole was likely good contact. I would guess a poor stroke tends to be followed by another poor stroke, don't you think?

mmm not sure I can agree.  I bet the average distance short (which includes a no of poor hits) is longer than the average distance past (which are mostly solid strikes).  So having just hit a solid strike, seen some info on the line and having a shorter hit I'd prefer my chances on the return putt over the have another attempt one.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()