Analytics

[Tim Martin]

Does boiling down every facet of the game into a distinct data set with the goal of shooting 87 instead of 90 really benefit the sport at the amateur level? One thing I always loved about golf is that there is no manifesto or blueprint required to enjoy it.

[Sean_A]

Does boiling down every facet of the game into a distinct data set with the goal of shooting 87 instead of 90 really benefit the sport at the amateur level? One thing I always loved about golf is that there is no manifesto or blueprint required to enjoy it.

I am highly skeptical about the relavance of pro golfer statistical anaylsis for the overwhelming majority of amateur golfers and for making decisions on course design for an overwhelming number of courses.  Statistics for pro golfers should be used in the proper lanes...which are very narrow.

I think plenty of folks keep analytics about their own game to help with improvement.  I see no issue with that.  In fact, I think the geeks who do this sort of thing really enjoy it. 

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

How did the “geeks” enjoy the game before Trackman?

[Tommy Williamsen]

How did the “geeks” enjoy the game before Trackman?

How many fairways hit?
How many greens hit?
How many sand saves?
How many up and downs.
How many misses left and right?
There were lots of ways to keep stats.
How many birdies?
How many bogies/doubles?

[Tim Martin]

How did the “geeks” enjoy the game before Trackman?

How many fairways hit?
How many greens hit?
How many sand saves?
How many up and downs.
How many misses left and right?
There were lots of ways to keep stats.
How many birdies?
How many bogies/doubles?

Tom-Although mine was a rhetorical question- Touché

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim -
as someone who took the game up as an adult, it took me a long long time and a lot of frustration before I realized that there wasn't a 'right way' to swing a golf club. My copies of Hogan's Five Fundamentals and Nicklaus' Golf My Way etc etc are coffee stained and falling apart from years of reading & re-reading -- but for me, far from improving my swing or my game or my scores, they instead sapped out any natural athleticism I may have had and prevented me from settling into the ease and repeatability of my own instinctive golf swing. I'm not built like Hogan or Nicklaus, and I don't think like them, and I didn't take up the game as a youngster like Nelson or Snead did, and I certainly haven't had the lessons and training and years on the range that all current tour pros have had.

Which is to say: I think the potential drawback of the 'distinct data set' mentality -- especially for impressionable types like me who want to understand and become proficient -- is that it subtly and overtly both suggests that golf is a game of 'blueprints' and stats/analysis; and that the 'proper' way of lowering your scores is to follow the 'manifesto' and to do it the 'right' (i.e. the 'only') way.  And I've come to believe, from experience, that nothing could be further from the truth -- probably about anything but especially about golf. It is the most 'individual' of all games.

[Thomas Dai]

Analysis has its place, as does instinct and nous. When analysis, especially of a subjective matter with dozens of outside variables like golf has, reaches excess though, boredom can easily arise.
Atb

[John Emerson]

The only stats I’ve ever kept are score, and I hardly do that anymore.  My enjoyment of golf is at an all time high.  All that other stuff (IMO) for amateurs isn’t completely useless, but close. Like any other sport or motor skill It takes thousands and thousands of repetitions and being able to feel the difference in good shots and bad ones.  What does GIR matter if they can’t get the tee ball in the air?  To me, stats are a waste of time.  If I was a pro and the difference in a stroke or two cost me money or a cut then yes I’m definitely looking at some numbers.  For amateurs I don’t see the point...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does boiling down every facet of the game into a distinct data set with the goal of shooting 87 instead of 90 really benefit the sport at the amateur level? One thing I always loved about golf is that there is no manifesto or blueprint required to enjoy it.

I am highly skeptical about the relavance of pro golfer statistical anaylsis for the overwhelming majority of amateur golfers and for making decisions on course design for an overwhelming number of courses.  Statistics for pro golfers should be used in the proper lanes...which are very narrow.

Ciao

Understood, but Broadie, USGA, etc. have produced more data on average golfers in the last few years, such as how far they really hit it (length and width) and I do use those kind of stats to design for them, i;e. form follows function.  I do wish there was more and not just a secondary study to the various pro golf tours.

[Tom_Doak]

One of my favorite things that Pete Dye ever said to me was:


"People criticize me for designing for good golfers.  But how could you design for the average golfer?  After two shots on a par five, the average golfer could be ANYWHERE."


What was so fun about it is that I realized it is literally true:  they might well hit their tee shot o.b., and still be on the tee!


But the lesson I took away from it was very different.  Instead of designing approach shots for a certain distance or direction, I consider making them playable no matter where they might be coming from.


The TOUR's Shotlink data is fun to see once, with every tee shot dotted on a map of the hole, and color-coordinated as to what score resulted.  I would love to see the same data for one day's normal play on, say, the 6th hole at Pacific Dunes.  I have a feeling it would look like a Jackson Pollack painting, or a shotgun blast dispersion.


[I edited out a typo.]

[Kalen Braley]

Tom, Exactly.

I pointed out similar on the Book Club thread as well, and Pete was obviously spot on.

P.S.  In my weekly play with the same group of guys back in Spokane, all of us double digit handicappers, there was a massive disparity at how we would play the par 4s and 5s...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Does boiling down every facet of the game into a distinct data set with the goal of shooting 87 instead of 90 really benefit the sport at the amateur level? One thing I always loved about golf is that there is no manifesto or blueprint required to enjoy it.

If it's not for you, don't do it.

If you're looking to get better, though, and shoot lower scores, knowing how and where to spend your valuable and limited practice time is very beneficial to many, IMO (and theirs).

I am highly skeptical about the relavance of pro golfer statistical anaylsis for the overwhelming majority of amateur golfers

We have a lot more than just pro golfer statistical analysis. We have millions of shots hit by amateurs.

That said, many things are surprisingly steady throughout wide ranges.

All that other stuff (IMO) for amateurs isn’t completely useless, but close.

For you, sure. For others, no way.

What does GIR matter if they can’t get the tee ball in the air?

How do you expect to get a GIR if you "can't get the tee ball in the air?"

To me, stats are a waste of time.  If I was a pro and the difference in a stroke or two cost me money or a cut then yes I’m definitely looking at some numbers.  For amateurs I don’t see the point...

Again, those looking to improve — sounds like not you, which is totally fine — can use them in a lot of great and useful ways.

[Tim Martin]

Does boiling down every facet of the game into a distinct data set with the goal of shooting 87 instead of 90 really benefit the sport at the amateur level? One thing I always loved about golf is that there is no manifesto or blueprint required to enjoy it.

If it's not for you, don't do it.

Thanks but I’ve been Kicking X and taking names without it.

[Rob Marshall]

Does boiling down every facet of the game into a distinct data set with the goal of shooting 87 instead of 90 really benefit the sport at the amateur level? One thing I always loved about golf is that there is no manifesto or blueprint required to enjoy it.

If it's not for you, don't do it.

If you're looking to get better, though, and shoot lower scores, knowing how and where to spend your valuable and limited practice time is very beneficial to many, IMO (and theirs).

I am highly skeptical about the relavance of pro golfer statistical anaylsis for the overwhelming majority of amateur golfers

We have a lot more than just pro golfer statistical analysis. We have millions of shots hit by amateurs.

That said, many things are surprisingly steady throughout wide ranges.

All that other stuff (IMO) for amateurs isn’t completely useless, but close.

For you, sure. For others, no way.

What does GIR matter if they can’t get the tee ball in the air?

How do you expect to get a GIR if you "can't get the tee ball in the air?"

To me, stats are a waste of time.  If I was a pro and the difference in a stroke or two cost me money or a cut then yes I’m definitely looking at some numbers.  For amateurs I don’t see the point...

Again, those looking to improve — sounds like not you, which is totally fine — can use them in a lot of great and useful ways.

Who is “we”?

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,


Analytics, banalytics!


I'm not sure if someone else on a previous long, exacting, tedious thread said the same thing!  If they did thanks for the memory, if not I am happy to own it.


I love to play golf and when I am there is no way the minutest bit of shot analysis enters my head.  I have a tiny wee bit of talent which only shows itself intermittently, without warning, and disappears as fast as it pops up!


I really think that there may be three or four players in the thousands of golfers I have chatted to, in over sixty years of playing this wondrous game, who have shown any sort of abiding interest in golfing analytics!


But my assertion has absolutely no data to substantiate it so the bunker sands could shift under me!!


Cheers Colin

[Mark Pearce]

I am always astonished by the propensity of people on this board to think they know what's best for me.  Whether I keep my own stats and use any form of analytics is for me to know and I cannot, for the life of me understand why anyone else should care, let alone have an opinion. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

One of my favorite things that Pete Dye ever said to me was:


"People criticize me for designing for good golfers.  But how could you design for the average golfer?  After two shots on a par five, the average golfer could be ANYWHERE."

Tom,


I haven't always found that true.  There are many pretty consistent, but consistently short hitting good golfers, men, seniors and women who are pretty predictable.   How else is it that according to the USGA some low handicap numbers only attain an average of 216 yards off the tee?


So, I think we should be designing for those guys and gals, not just assume they suck and don't use strategies themselves.


Of course, just MHO.

[Tom_Doak]

One of my favorite things that Pete Dye ever said to me was:


"People criticize me for designing for good golfers.  But how could you design for the average golfer?  After two shots on a par five, the average golfer could be ANYWHERE."

Tom,


I haven't always found that true.  There are many pretty consistent, but consistently short hitting good golfers, men, seniors and women who are pretty predictable.   How else is it that according to the USGA some low handicap numbers only attain an average of 216 yards off the tee?


So, I think we should be designing for those guys and gals, not just assume they suck and don't use strategies themselves.


Of course, just MHO.

Well, I agree with that.  They're the main people I'm thinking of when I say I am designing for approach shots from anywhere.  The approach shot has to work for their 4-wood or hybrid, whether it is coming from 125 yards away or 225, or else the hole is stupid and they have nothing to do.  Because on all but the shortest of par-4's, there will be someone who needs a long club to get home, even after a decent drive.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I am always astonished by the propensity of people on this board to think they know what's best for me.  Whether I keep my own stats and use any form of analytics is for me to know and I cannot, for the life of me understand why anyone else should care, let alone have an opinion.

Who is telling you what's best for you?

Analytics can help golfers in many ways. If you enjoy playing without them, great.

I don't understand the point of this topic. Nobody can "force" analytics on you, but if you want to apply them to your game, there's a number of good ways to do so, and a number of benefits to be had.

FWIW, and IMO, just knowing what the numbers say doesn't rob me of any joy, and can occasionally actually add to it. When you know that the shot you just hit, for example, gains 0.35 strokes against the PGA Tour average, you can feel pretty good about yourself. Understanding some other numbers, for example the 50% make rate from 8 feet, can help temper expectations and such, too. Golfers are often calmer if they understand even a few metrics.

[Tim Martin]

I am always astonished by the propensity of people on this board to think they know what's best for me.  Whether I keep my own stats and use any form of analytics is for me to know and I cannot, for the life of me understand why anyone else should care, let alone have an opinion.

Who is telling you what's best for you?

Analytics can help golfers in many ways. If you enjoy playing without them, great.

I don't understand the point of this topic. Nobody can "force" analytics on you, but if you want to apply them to your game, there's a number of good ways to do so, and a number of benefits to be had.

FWIW, and IMO, just knowing what the numbers say doesn't rob me of any joy, and can occasionally actually add to it. When you know that the shot you just hit, for example, gains 0.35 strokes against the PGA Tour average, you can feel pretty good about yourself. Understanding some other numbers, for example the 50% make rate from 8 feet, can help temper expectations and such, too. Golfers are often calmer if they understand even a few metrics.

The point of the topic is to gauge opinion on the board about the value of analytics. An awful lot of guys here just don’t have any interest as it applies to them personally and if I’m a bettor neither does the majority of the amateur golf population. To tell people as a teacher that “I guess you don’t want to get better then” is high handed bullshit. There are other teaching methods where people are improving other than your system. Newsflash-Lots of people enjoy the game without maximizing their practice sessions because they don’t have practice sessions.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The point of the topic is to gauge opinion on the board about the value of analytics.

Really? It started it like this:

Does boiling down every facet of the game into a distinct data set with the goal of shooting 87 instead of 90 really benefit the sport at the amateur level? One thing I always loved about golf is that there is no manifesto or blueprint required to enjoy it.

First you mischaracterizes analytics, then say you don't need 'em. Which is fine!

An awful lot of guys here just don’t have any interest as it applies to them personally and if I’m a bettor neither does the majority of the amateur golf population.

Of course they don't. There are 25 million golfers. Probably 24 million of them or more don't know a thing about analytics.

To tell people as a teacher that “I guess you don’t want to get better then” is high handed bullshit.

I never said anything like that. In the, what, two posts I've made to this point, I've said "If you don't like 'em, cool, but for many, they can help."

There are other teaching methods where people are improving other than your system. Newsflash-Lots of people enjoy the game without maximizing their practice sessions because they don’t have practice sessions.

What are you even talking about? I'm not talking about "my system," (I don't even know what that means, "my system" in this context) and of course people "enjoy the game without maximizing their practice sessions." I've not said any differently.

Edit:

If you're looking to get better, though, and shoot lower scores, knowing how and where to spend your valuable and limited practice time is very beneficial to many, IMO (and theirs).

You (Tim) understand that the "you" in "you're" is the royal "you," as in "If golfers are looking to get better, though, and shoot lower scores, knowing how and where to spend their valuable and limited practice time is very beneficial to many [not all, not even most, many], in my opinion (and theirs)", right?

If the point is to actually "gauge opinion on the value of analytics," then put me down for the "they're not for everyone, because not everyone cares in that way, but for many, they're a great help."

[Tim Martin]

The point of the topic is to gauge opinion on the board about the value of analytics.

Really? It started it like this:

Does boiling down every facet of the game into a distinct data set with the goal of shooting 87 instead of 90 really benefit the sport at the amateur level? One thing I always loved about golf is that there is no manifesto or blueprint required to enjoy it.

First you mischaracterizes analytics, then say you don't need 'em. Which is fine!

An awful lot of guys here just don’t have any interest as it applies to them personally and if I’m a bettor neither does the majority of the amateur golf population.

Of course they don't. There are 25 million golfers. Probably 24 million of them or more don't know a thing about analytics.

To tell people as a teacher that “I guess you don’t want to get better then” is high handed bullshit.

I never said anything like that. In the, what, two posts I've made to this point, I've said "If you don't like 'em, cool, but for many, they can help."

There are other teaching methods where people are improving other than your system. Newsflash-Lots of people enjoy the game without maximizing their practice sessions because they don’t have practice sessions.

What are you even talking about? I'm not talking about "my system," (I don't even know what that means, "my system" in this context) and of course people "enjoy the game without maximizing their practice sessions." I've not said any differently.

Edit:

If you're looking to get better, though, and shoot lower scores, knowing how and where to spend your valuable and limited practice time is very beneficial to many, IMO (and theirs).

You (Tim) understand that the "you" in "you're" is the royal "you," as in "If golfers are looking to get better, though, and shoot lower scores, knowing how and where to spend their valuable and limited practice time is very beneficial to many [not all, not even most, many], in my opinion (and theirs)", right?

If the point is to actually "gauge opinion on the value of analytics," then put me down for the "they're not for everyone, because not everyone cares in that way, but for many, they're a great help."

Your system is Medicus Golf no?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Your system is Medicus Golf no?

What "system" are you talking about? And what does that have to do with "analytics?"

[Tim Martin]

Your system is Medicus Golf no?

What "system" are you talking about? And what does that have to do with "analytics?"

Lowest Score Wins/ Medicus Golf doesn’t use analytics?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Lowest Score Wins/ Medicus golf doesn’t use analytics?

LSW != Medicus. And yes, we "use analytics." We've "used analytics" with our individual students. I've used them with my daughter. I've used them in my own game, we've used them with our Tour clients, etc.

As I've said, for many, they're quite helpful. And if you're not interested, that's cool by me.