Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Sam Sikes on March 15, 2006, 10:35:35 AM
-
I read a statistic the other day that Phil made something like 84% of his putts from 6-7 feet in 2005. According to Dave Pelz's research, such success is impossible on the greens. So my question is: Has the new ball made putting easier? Is it more frequently perfectly round? Is this a factor that has lead lower scores that has been overlooked?
-
I read a statistic the other day that Phil made something like 84% of his putts from 6-7 feet in 2005. According to Dave Pelz's research, such success is impossible on the greens. So my question is: Has the new ball made putting easier? Is it more frequently perfectly round? Is this a factor that has lead lower scores that has been overlooked?
Sam,
That topic has come up a couple times here over the past year. The ShotLink data makes it very clear that Dave Pelz's putting success numbers no longer apply to Tour caliber players. It isn't the ball, IMO. The greens week in and week out on Tour are absolutely perfect for making 10-footers. There's no way the greens today aren't worlds better than when Pelz was gathering data in the mid-to-late 80's.
I think the other factor is evolution of putting strokes. It used to be (say more than 30 years ago) you needed a little "pop" in your putting stroke to get the ball rolling on slowish, grainy greens. Watch some of the old All-Star Golf or early Shell's WWoG matches. Those greens wouldn't make a decent "first cut" at the Masters nowadays.
Pelz has always preached a wristless, "pop"-less putting stroke that just rocks the shoulders back and forth with a neutral putting setup. In a sense he was ahead of his time because when he first started writing that, it was possible to be an extremely effective putter with the older style putting stroke. Nowadays, anyone who puts wrist action and forearm movement into their putting stroke is going to at best get the sort of results that Pelz graphs in his books. But on perfect greens Stimping 10+ you can absolutely make more putts over time with a pure, dead-hands, Pelz-style back-and-through motion. Since the best players spend all their time putting on nigh-perfect, fast greens that style has superceded the older style and the result is greater success in that important six to ten foot range.
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
-
I think the 5 foot distance was 50-50% for average golfers when he wrote his book, and 6 foot was the average break even for Tour pros. If we assume Phil is above average with the flat stick, his stat is understandable, but still seemingly a bit high. It appears that the break even point has gone up to at least 8 feet for the top 10% of the putters on Tour.
I tend to agree with Brent in that the major cause is the greens themselves. However, Wilson did attempt to market the "True" ball which was suppposedly more round and better balancerd than other balls. They failed to capture much high end ball sales (distance still reigns in sales, I suppose) but its not too much of a stretch to think others adopted that technology and now have rounder balls than ever before, that hold shape better, etc.
Balls might contribute a percentage point or two to the increased accuracy.
-
Jeff,
It must surely be true that a Tour player switching from a Titleist Tour Balata (wound core) to a ProV1 (solid core) is going to make a few extra putts along the line because the ball isn't lumpy. Something like a True Tour (which I've used BTW and it does roll really nicely) is maybe a little rounder and better balanced than a ProV1. But a ProV1 is much rounder and better balanced than any wound ball.
-
Sam,
Add flatter putts to the mix.
-
Does equipment play a role?
The Yes putter with its groves and the technology that Scotty Cameron applies to matching putters to pros. Quite an advancement from the Bulls Eye of days gone by.
Better greens, coupled with new balls and far better equipment may be the equation for the improvement.
So do these change or impact the intent of the architect who designned the greens? Was the design for a slower green? A ball that was not true?
-
Can anyone confirm for sure that the statistic about Mickelson's putting is real, and not another urban legend?
-
He kept his own stats and counted as makes any missed putt that lipped out or hit a spike mark. ;)
-
Brent,
I just don't know when Pelz wrote the book. I didn't read it until after the advent of the Pro VI, so if the time frame is over 10 years or so then balls may figure into it.
Of course, I would think that if you asked Pelz, he would date Mickelsons improvement to the time he took over as his short game guru, citing technique. And frankly, I do think technique and stroke are still most of it, followed by greens consistency and then ball consistency.
John,
I doubt the gca considered future technology when grading greens. First, it can't be predicted, and second, even moreso than relative distance of full shots, the players are under equal conditions when putting. If they make the putts under whatever conditions, they make the putts.
Beyond that, greens in those days were probably more variable in condition from season to season than they are now.
-
Jeff -- it surprises me that average golfers make or made 50% of 5 footers. I would have expected a lower percentage.
It SHOCKS me that Mickelson made 84% of 6 or 7 footers over a full year. Not sure if JES' answer is tongue in cheek, but that kind of explanation makes more sense.
I used to use an all-shoulder stroke. Felt it really helped me keep the ball on line.
-
I have to believe that someone putting with a pro v 1 is going to make more putts than with a balata. And, i happen to think that number is significant, even more so than the improved greens factor. The ball simply rolls better.
-
I blame John Kavanaugh for propagating the notion that flatter greens are a better test for pros. :)
I'd love to see it broken out by tournament.
One of the most amazing things to me about watching the '03 Am at Oakmont was that nobody - and I mean nobody - ever left himself with a tap in, regardless of whether it was for birdie, par, bogey or whatever. In fact, it was rare to see someone leave a putt within 2 feet. More often than not, the first putt was either holed or left 3-4 feet away, and those were either holed or they themselves ran 3 feet by. My money says that Phil doesn't hole 84% of his 6 footers at Oakmont.
So, to summarize, I think it's technology, but it's maintenance and design technology, not implements and balls.
-
John,
I doubt the gca considered future technology when grading greens. First, it can't be predicted, and second, even moreso than relative distance of full shots, the players are under equal conditions when putting. If they make the putts under whatever conditions, they make the putts.
Beyond that, greens in those days were probably more variable in condition from season to season than they are now.
That's an interesting quote to me Jeff, beyond the scope of putting alone.
I have always wondered to what extent the gca's of 80 years ago thought about the evolution of the game concerning distance and agronomy. If this takes this particular topic off course I will start another thread along these lines.
What can (or do) you do when building a course today to help it retain its viability 50 or 100 years from now?
-
Somewhere or another (can't put my hands on an exact reference) Jaime Diaz quoted a PGA Tour putting study from the 1989 season and compared results on six-foot putts between then and the ShotLink stats from the 2004 season, 15 years later.
Percentage of six-foot putts made on Tour:
1989 55%
2004 70%
So in just a 15-year interval, a Tour players chances of sinking a six-footer increase by almost a third. Over the course of a season, that's a big difference.
-
Whatever Phil did or didn't do, the most remarkable stat from 2005 is Tiger.
From 3 ft. and in:
Attempts--566
Made------566
Whether it is technology, green conditions, practice habits, or an act of God, that is an amazing number.
-
Just on instinct that must be 1/2 - 3/4 of a stroke per round. Many other variables come into play, sure, but how often do they play a round and not have at least a few 6 footers. The same reasons will carry to all length putts so is it fair to think the average number of putts per round is way down from 15 or 20 years ago?
-
If Phil is 84%, he is well above average.
Geoff Shack quotes a recent Golf World article by Nick Seitz as saying a 1988 Tour study pegged coversion rate at six feet at 54.8%. In a "mulligan" study in 2005, conversions averaged 69.6%. Putts per greens in regulation went from 1.810 tp 1.779 in that time, averaging about 1.5 shots per tourney.
I seem to recall reading that basically, the difference in average tour scores reflects improvements in putting.
One thing I think we can rule out is human nature of being nervous under pressure. I suspect that doesn't change much, although, with larger second place checks, maybe that has gone down as well.
BTW, my version of Pelz is from 1999 and he did peg Tour Pros 50-50% range as 6 feet, average golfers less, obviously, but no number, at least early in the book where I checked. So, his data might have been pretty current at time of pulication, midway between those years and midway between conversion rates.
Interesting side note, but I wonder if 6 feet means 6 to 7 feet, or 5.51 feet to 6.5 feet, since they presumably measure in one foot increments.
-
As to the golf ball.......
In the old days, of wound balls, I tested quite a few golf balls using the method defined in Dave Pelz' book. You have a salt bath in a large cup, with glycerine or something to lube the ball, and spin the ball in the heavy salt bath. Mark the top when it comes to rest, spin again. Quite a few balls would have a heavy spot and come to rest in the same position upon spinning again.
You mark the this spot, and when putting, you do not place the heavy spot on the side.
Now, with the newer ProVs, etc., I tested a number and really didn't find a heavy side. Then a few years ago, someone started selling that 'fancy' spinning device that did the spin testing, etc. I think newer balls are better with respect to uniform weighting.
Also, as mentioned in Dave Pelz book, I imagine the 'volcano' effect around the hole would be very much lessened at tournament courses as compared to ordinary course conditioning. Volcano effect being that as everyone steps around the hole, a depressed area is formed around the cup and the cup is effectively raised like a volcano. A tournament course receives much less play (140 rounds) and then about 70 rounds on the weekend. Hole locations are changed every day. The area around the cup has to be much smoother given less play and extra attention to cup placement by maintenance crew. The professionals should putt better if only for course condition.
Have there been any 'changes' in cup setting to minimize 'volcano' effect even more. Perhaps, the firmer greens being used today, to 'toughen' course setup, has helped with respect to minimizing volcano effect.
But, I wonder, with all the special treatment that professionals are offered, do the pros receive 'specially' tested golf balls ? Golf balls that receive special testing for roundness, weight distribution, etc.
Does anyone have insight on 'routine' QA/QC testing for golf balls and whether golf balls supplies to professionals receive 'extra testing' ?
-
think about the construction of the ball. A ball with a soft shell and a large hard core MUST roll better than ball with a soft cover, miles of rubber bands, and a liquid core.
The difference has to be very significant. I am willing to bet that even with improved green construction, flatter hole location positions, etc...., a tour player would make significantly less putts with a balata ball.
-
a great test for this theory would be to test the putting stats from the masters. The green are no faster or smoother than they were 15 years ago, and the greens are not more severe, nor are the hole locations. I wonder what the stats say about the percentage of putts holed and if that has impacted scores in the last few years.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that bermuda greens on tour have improved in quality over the past 15 years, which would have a significant impact on the stats.
sam
-
keep in mind the tour pros would change their balatas every hole or 2 or 3 because the balls would go out of round. plus i think they would get the best quality balls that could be porovided at the time. i discount the ball effect as anything more than minor. the greens are much better and more consistent week to week and newer grass strains have reduced the impact of grain.
-
I think people are forgetting how shi**y the quality of balata balls was when they were in play. They were rarely round, and Im not convinced they weren't out of round after one full shot.
-
This is a quote from an instructional article Phil did in this month's Golf Digest. His stats are based on Shotlink.
"I made 99 percent of my three-footers. From six feet, I made only 68 percent. This is where you save shots--lag putting or chipping a foot or two closer to the hole--not by making more long putts."
-
Another way to guage how much is green and how much is ball is to compare the yearly improvement stats from 88 to 05. I think greens on tour have incrememtally improved every year, so if the rise was gradual, it would be mostly greens. If there was a big jump the year the ProV started to dominate the tour, and not so much other years, then it was the ball.
Besides yearly Master stats, you could also use other repeating tour sites - but would have to factor in weather and possible greens resurfacing to see how they improved yearly.
-
Here's a Moriarty chart of average putts per GIR since 1988 for the Tour, showing the leader and the middle of the pack (50th place). Not surprisingly the middle of the pack is a smoother line. Call it the Rinker/Heintz effect.
Putting may have improved by 2 or 3 putts per tournament for the leaders. For the pack, maybe 1 or 2 per tournament.
Stats seem to have worsened marginally since 2001 and the V1. Go figure.
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/5765_1024.ts1142468292530.jpg)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.