[Brent Hutto]

I've been applying the "Strokes Gained" methodology to several of my recent rounds. When it comes to putting I've noticed an interesting pattern and I wonder if it has GCA implications.

If you're not familiar with this way of quantifying putting, the baseline for comparison is PGA Tour ShotLink stats over the past decade or so. There a number of putts vs. distance table which reflects the average of all PGA Tour putts from that distance. It averages over uphill, downhill, sidehill, good greens, bad greens. Distance is the only factor taken into account in making the table.

Using that table I find that on the Par 3 greens at my home course I average -0.312 strokes per hole Strokes Gained relative to the PGA Tour baseline. So I am about 3/10 of a stroke worse at putting, per hole, than an average Tour player. On Par 4 greens the number is -0.183 and for Par 5's it is -0.150 strokes.

Assuming my putting, on average, reflects the difficulty of various greens from any given distance this suggests that our Par 3 greens are much harder as a set than the Par 4 and Par 5 greens. It also suggests that maybe the Par 5 greens are slightly easier than the Par 4's. By the way it's a 27 hole course with 15 Par 5's and 6 each of Par 3's and Par 4's.

Is there any general GCA tendency to make Par 3 greens harder to putt? Or for Par 5 greens to be a bit easier?

[Peter Pallotta]

Brent - I am looking forward to hearing the answers. This is really interesting, both the fact of your studying of it (and your methods) and what you've uncovered/learned in doing so.

Peter

[Brent Hutto]

In true Treehouse fashion, it makes me want to play a bunch of other courses and keep track of my putting stats to see how THEIR one shotters putt differently than the long holes...

Actually I can often remember my first-putt distances after a round without writing them down. When I go on vacation this September maybe every night I'll jot down the numbers and be able to analyze five rounds at Royal St. Davids.

[Josh Tarble]

Brent,
I'm actually wondering if it has more to do with your approach shots than you're putting.  In theory, you'll be approaching par 3s with the longest clubs, par 4s will be a mix of long and short clubs and par 5s would typically be the shortest.   And so you are faced with the longest putts on 3s, a mix on 4s and shortest on 5s.

As your putts get longer, you are further from the average tour player.  Which would also make sense because they are much better than amateurs on longer putts relative to shorter putts.  

It is quite fascinating though...I would like to hear more of your stat-keeping efforts.

[Peter Pallotta]

Brent - just fyi, I  was struck over the years by how well Corey Pavin used to do on the strokes-gained on Par 3s stats. I think he used to sometimes lead the tour in the birdies there....which isn't really related to anything here I guess, but which may related in terms of good putting being more important on 3s than on 4s and 5s.

Peter

[Matthew Essig]

As a general trend, par 3 greens are probably designed to be harder to putt becuase your shot into the green is off of a flat (or almost flat), and if you want to hit off a tee, perfect lie.

I am not saying that this is always the case or that it should always be the case. It is probably just a general trend. There is nothing wrong with variety.

[Alex Miller]

Brent,
I'm actually wondering if it has more to do with your approach shots than you're putting.  In theory, you'll be approaching par 3s with the longest clubs, par 4s will be a mix of long and short clubs and par 5s would typically be the shortest.   And so you are faced with the longest putts on 3s, a mix on 4s and shortest on 5s.

As your putts get longer, you are further from the average tour player.  Which would also make sense because they are much better than amateurs on longer putts relative to shorter putts.  

It is quite fascinating though...I would like to hear more of your stat-keeping efforts.

Agree with Josh. This data tells me you need to work on your lag putting more relative to the average tour player, not necessarily about ease of certain greens to others.

[Brent Hutto]

Josh,

That's an interesting possibility but maybe in the opposite direction. I play the shorter tees (more or less "senior" tees) most of the time and the Par 3's are quite short (100-160 yards). So actually I may have more than my share of putts inside 15 or 20 feet on the Par 3's.

As you can see from this breakdown, relative to Tour players I am pitiful in the 6-10 foot range. That's my putting weak point and maybe the very shortest Par 3's where I'm hitting a wedge or 8/9 iron are giving me "too many" eight-footers (just joking, I'll take all the eight-foot birdie putts I can get!).

2, 3, 4, 5 feet Strokes Gained Putting= -0.11536765
6, 7, 8, 9  feet Strokes Gained Putting=  -0.25416667
10, 12, 15  feet Strokes Gained Putting=  -0.16378049
20, 25, 30  feet Strokes Gained Putting=  -0.16227273
35 feet or longer Strokes Gained Putting=  -0.14900000

Of course Strokes Gained does not account for any possibility that for a given distance I may be leaving myself above the hole more often or something like that. But that sort of thing should average out over 100+ holes.

[Jim Nugent]

Brent, my first thought was the same as Josh's.  

If your idea is right, it should show up in the pro game as well. Any evidence about that, one way or the other? 

[Josh Tarble]

Brent,
That also makes sense...and it may not mean anything more than those guys are unreal on putts from 5 - 10 feet.  I think I've seen where they make somewhere around 70% of those putts, which is absurd.

The other thought I just had, based on your comments about the tees you play, was maybe you're hitting more greens in regulation on par 3s, so you're likely to be putting from further away.

I think the strokes gained stats probably says less about the architecture and more about the player...but I could be wrong.  I would be very interested to see 1) what the tour's average is on par 3s, 4s and 5s (like Jim suggests) and 2) what your average might say after playing a few different courses.

[David Royer]

I just finished reading Mark Broadie's book this past weekend.  Your initial observations on putting are not atypical relative to 6-10 feet.  I never thought about the greens in context of 3, 4 or 5.  I'll start tracking as well to see if the outcome reflects same as 4 or 5 based on the length of  approach shots. We have 3's that are varying in length. 130-190.  It should allow for some comparisons.

[Thomas Dai]

Par-3's generally tend to be the most well defended greens, and thus the hardest greens to hit in regulation. Plus, because of the defences, they are normally also the hardest greens to make an up-n-down on, or at least that's been my experience. A particularly severe example would be the 2nd hole at Royal Dornoch.

I'll be interested to see what this stats analysis shows long-term though.

I think the two elements of putting that Dave Pelz recommends folk practice the most (apart obviously from fundamental stroke technique) are 6-8 ft putts and long lag putts.

atb

[Brent Hutto]

Josh,

I'm hoping to come across that information as well. The book does not tabulate "type of hole" versus putting specifically for the Tour players but it would be trivial for the guys with the data to do it. Ideally, show maybe how Strokes Gained varies (or does not) from medium to long distances for Tour players. For instance are 20, 30, 40 foot range putts tougher on Par 3 or Par 5 greens, that sort of thing.

It'll show up eventually, somewhere. The data is all sitting there.

David,

Sounds great! This is a cool and very accessible methodology for those of us who are numbers-geeks even a little bit.

Thomas,

My long lag putting isn't as bad as I think is, apparently, but I think that's partly because whether it's me or a Tour player those total meltdowns where a 50-foot lag putt goes wandering off to the wrong side of a ridge or something...the result is a 3-putt for me and a 3-putt for them. But neither me or a Tour player screws up that badly more than once every few rounds unless we play on "Doak greens"! But that's a whole 'nother thread isn't it.

There's a guy at my club who's about as good a putter as you're likely to meet. I was with him recently on a day when I was making more than my share of 6-footers (i.e. more than half of 'em). At some point he said "Nice putt" after I made a comebacker from about seven feet when I ran a long putt past the hole.

I said "The game's real easy as long as those 6-8 footers keep dropping". He said "Yep same story for you, me and the guys playing on TV".

P.S. It's not unusual for me to be eating lunch in the clubhouse and that guy is out there rolling in one six-footer after another on the practice green. He'll be there when I order, while I eat and still there after I hit the road. I wonder how many six-foot putts he's rolled in his life...

[JMEvensky]

P.S. It's not unusual for me to be eating lunch in the clubhouse and that guy is out there rolling in one six-footer after another on the practice green. He'll be there when I order, while I eat and still there after I hit the road. I wonder how many six-foot putts he's rolled in his life...

Probably a lot more than those of us who aren't rolling them while you order,eat,and hit the road. There might be something to that practice thing.

[Peter Pallotta]

P.S. It's not unusual for me to be eating lunch in the clubhouse and that guy is out there rolling in one six-footer after another on the practice green. He'll be there when I order, while I eat and still there after I hit the road. I wonder how many six-foot putts he's rolled in his life...

Probably a lot more than those of us who aren't rolling them while you order,eat,and hit the road. There might be something to that practice thing.

It's true, but there's also something to that eating and drinking and effing-around thing....it's called LIVING!!

To paraphrase: I don't think anyone's going to get to the Pearly Gates and say "I wish I'd have practiced more 6 footers...."

[Tom_Doak]

I can only say that I've never thought consciously about making the greens on a par-3 harder or easier than on another set of holes.  And I can't recall any other architect mentioning it, in print or in person.  It's possible we do it subconsciously, I guess.

In the modern world, there is so much data, that there is much more tendency than before to find patterns in the noise.

[Brent Hutto]

I just "wasted" a half-hour confirming that it's not a side effect of how long my first putts are (i.e. hitting it closer or farther on the Par 3's on average). But the point is well taken about if you look hard enough data points will emerge.

I'm not sure I want to dive down into "which Par 3" in my dataset because it's not laid out that way by default. I suspect most of it comes from three particular Par 3 greens (out of our set of six) where the hole is frequently cut on or near rather severe slopes. Two of them in particular can force you deliberately lag a 6, 8, 10 foot putt because if you get below the hole it will feed all the way back down into the fairway.

So if I get bored I'll peel out those severe holes. But I suspect I'm just seeing a few strokes here and there spent on defensive putting where it's better to guarantee a 2-foot par putt than to risk a double-bogey.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()