[A.G._Crockett]

Tom,


If you're good enough to hit 14 greens a round for 30 years by definition you are good enough to hit irons close and par 5s in two:)

Correct, and it's even more than that; if you are hitting 14 greens a round, then it's highly probable that you are in very good position to get up and down on the ones that you missed.  And it works in reverse; players that only hit a few greens have much worse misses on the holes where they miss.

[A.G._Crockett]

Unless I've overlooked them, there are a couple of key points from Broadie's research that are relevant to the discussion of GCA and Tour pros.
First, and of great importance, Broadie's research shows that the idea of "long and wild" is pretty much a myth.  The same skill set that allows a given golfer to hit the ball a long way also allows him to hit the ball relatively straight.  That's a key reason that the correlation between driving distance and the money list is MUCH higher than the correlation between putting stats and the money list.

Second, and building off the first, is the fact that Broadie recognizes and analyzes the fact that all misses are not equal in their impact on scoring.  A ball that is a couple of feet into the rough will count as a missed fairway, but may not impact scoring very much at all, and certainly not as much as a ball that requires a punch out the trees, or a layup from a fairway bunker, etc.

[A.G._Crockett]

Ooh I have a good amount to say here, but I'll try to keep it short. Though, short for me is probably not short for others… sorry!

Before I start discussing what I've taken from the book, has it been discussed here before, and I just missed it?  How many of our posters have actually read the book?

I read it, and wrote my own book that came out about 40 days later covering this stuff. Lowest Score Wins. We focused more on the amateur game, which often parallels what we see in the pro game.

The most interesting part or Brodie's work to me is identifying why and where pros are so much better than amateurs.  If an amateur challenged a tour player to a putting contest, they could very easily win 1 of 2 out of 10 games with a bit of luck.

It's higher than that. A 90s shooter will beat a PGA Tour player 10% of the time over 18 holes, and a scratch golfer 30% of the time.

Broadie's sample sizes are neither small, nor confined to Tour pros or Shotlink; his data collection actually started BEFORE Shotlink was available.  He covers his methodology and samples early on in the book, and I think the reader comes away satisfied that his data is valid.  And if memory serves, he even comments that he found it surprising that the conclusions about pros holds up across the entire spectrum.

True. It aligned with what Dave Wedzik and I found in our studies, too, as did Pete Sanders' (ShotByShot) data.

So I will start with one of his conclusions that I found most jarring, which is that putting from above the hole is no different statistically from putting from below the hole.  His stats "prove" that you have a better make percentage from six feet above the hole than from eight feet below the hole, so, there would almost never be a good reason to aim an approach shot to stay below the hole, instead of aiming right at it.

Do you think that holds up at Augusta National?

You said it all in your next paragraph.  Augusta is an exception.

The diagrams of strategy on a par-4 with water or o.b. in play did stand out to me.  His recommendation is for players to aim 32.5 yards wide of a hazard whether it's in the fairway or not, because the penalty shot costs them so much more than the fractional penalty for being in the rough.  In theory, those numbers would change with the length of the hole -- i.e. it might be worth the risk if you could drive the green and make eagle sometimes -- but he does not present that scenario as far as I've seen.

Tom if you'd like, as I own copies of several of your books, I'd be happy to send you a hardcover copy of mine, as I think the "shades of grey" that Dave and I use in our "Decision Maps" in LSW are generally a better way to view these types of strategy decisions than just saying "32.5 yards wide…".

A) How does Brodie’s work compare to the data Dave Pelz was collecting years ago?

Dave Pelz is biased like crazy in this, because he only teaches the short game. He'll tell you to this day that you should spend 60% of your time practicing your short game and putting because 60% of your shots come from within 100 yards. But PGA Tour pros have nine tap-ins per round, or about 12.5% of their shots, and yet they shouldn't spend 1.25% of their time practicing tap-ins let alone 12.5%. It's a bad use of statistics and Pelz is guilty of this stuff all the time.

However, I have found the work of Scott Fawcett more compelling because he makes use of the data but provided better practical application of the data, at least in terms of the way I think. I'm pretty sure Bryson DeChambeau is a big proponent of Fawcett's decade system. And, Fawcett works with many high level college programs. So, his strategy ideas are going to become more common on Tour.

The downfall of Fawcett's stuff (and hey, read all the bias you want here as Dave and I also work with collegiate programs, etc.) is that he prescribes a single set of numbers for everyone, with virtually no variation depending on your individual abilities. Water hazard x yards from the flag = aim x yards further this direction, no matter whether you're a great wedge player, or a poor wedge player, or a 5 handicapper, or a Tour pro…

So the thing with that is most players have a baseline range of scores that they shoot. For most tour pros it's probably in the 65-72 range. For the most part, where they fall in that range is dependent on how many putts they happen to hole.

The number of putts they happen to hole often depends on how good their ball-striking is that day, as the single biggest determinant of whether you're going to make the putt is how close it is to the hole.

The tournaments where it's 30% are the ones where they have high strokes gained putting and not surprisingly the ones where they are at the top of the leaderboard. The weeks where it's 10% are the weeks they miss the cut.

If I'm reading what you're saying correctly, no… Ballstriking matters far more. The weeks where they miss too many greens and have too many par putts - regardless of whether they make 10-30% - are the weeks they miss the cut. Putting accounts for only about 35% of the strokes gained by the winner, and PGA Tour players only make, on average, 1.5 putts over 21 feet per 72 holes. The great putters bump that to 1.7.

The winner each week, I generalize as "the best putter out of the best ballstriker." Where by "best putter" I don't mean in general, I mean the one who putts well and has a little luck that week.

Conversely, strokes gained approach across a season ranges from about -2.5 to +2.5. A far higher range, which is why that has more impact than putting. But a given player who has a good approach game probably ranges from +1 to +2, while a bad player might range from -1 to -2. I'm making these numbers up, but the point is that week to week people's strokes gained approach doesn't change very much, while their putting number fluctuates a lot more.

Funny that you say that, as today after talking with someone else I asked Mark that question, basically: https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkBroadie/status/1063583993285750785

SG std dev by round in 2018: OTT  1.1, APP  1.6, ARG  1.1, Putt 1.7.  This is consistent with winners (typically) raising their game in the week they win with better putting and better approach shots.

Clearly there is a bigger difference in the long game. So that might imply you should work on your long game. What I don't think Broadie's stuff shows you is how much work might be involved in improving those. What I mean there is it might be that if you spent 15 minutes a day in your basement working on your putting from 6-8 feet for a week before a tournament, you could make the putting number -2 instead of -4, so you could pick up 2 shots right there. To gain two shots with your long game might need months of work to be done.

That's one of the things that I think Dave and I cover well.

There's data to show what the real number is for my hypothetical 20 yards above. Both Broadie and Fawcett could tell you what it takes the average tour pro to hole out from certain distances in the rough and fairway.

Here you go: http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-5-2.png
20 yards rough: 2.59 strokes. 150 yards fairway: about 2.95.

Actually, I think Fawcett's point is that the dispersion patterns aren't dramatically different from player to player. Basically, every single golfer, virtually regardless of skill level has a dispersion pattern that is +/- 10% of the distance the shot travels. It has more to do with physics than skill level. (I think Broadie makes this point too).

 

The average amateur's dispersion is not 10%. And Tour players are below 10%.

https://cl.ly/ce1546194bad/Screen%20Shot%202018-11-17%20at%2012.32.31%20AM.png
(The "Average Golfer" in this graphic isn't calculated or empirical - it's an example from a presentation, and you're missing the explanatory talking that goes along with it).

Tom, short siding yourself is over-rated as a negative. If you're short-sided, you're closer to the hole. Players with "a lot of green to work with" are obviously FAR from the hole, relatively speaking. Short-siding yourself is only generally bad if the green slopes away and you have to fly the ball over a bunker or an upslope or something, basically guaranteeing you can't get the ball close easily.

But yeah, putting from even 50 feet is often better than a short shot from the rough. But remember even 20 yards is 60 feet, so that's not really "short siding" yourself, because that's not inside a 50-foot putt.

As to the course thing, I was also very interested in his recommendations about aiming away from hazards. There's definitely a logic to it in tournament play. I mean, if I'm on the tee at the Road Hole, knowing I might only get to play the hole a handful of times in my life, the risk/reward for me says it is worth taking a bold line that challenges the OB down the right because that's the best way to make par. And I want to be able to say, "I made 4 on the Road Hole." And if I knock it OB and make 8 that's not a bad story, either! It's not a great story to say. "Oh, the Road Hole? I played conservatively out to the left, then short of the green, shipped on and two-putted." But if I'm playing in a tournament then that's absolutely the way to play the hole. There;'s the chance to make a 4, but mostly likely you'll make 5 and 7 is out of the equation. That's the goal in tournament golf.

Yeah, we liken the optimal course strategy to playing a game with one die given 10:1 odds. You'd keep playing that game as long as the idiot let you, because even if you guess wrong on the first ten rolls, it's going to work out in your favor eventually. But if you're playing a tough hole where optimal strategy is hitting a hybrid off the tee, but you NEED a birdie… then you might just have to hit driver. The lowest AVERAGE score is not necessarily going to give you the highest odds of making a birdie. Different situations warrant different strategies.

The last time I played the Road Hole by hitting driver over the O in Hotel (bit of right-to-left wind). The pin was front right, near the Road Hole Bunker, and my 6-iron from 180 flew about 90 yards, rolled the other 90, and came to a stop 15 feet from the hole, and I made the putt.  In LSW we talk about a "penalty buffer" that surrounds hazards and things, and the Road Hole Bunker is what we'd call a fairly dark shade of grey. So generally, the strategy might be to lay up just short of the green, but like you said, you don't get to play the Road Hole every other day of the week, so…

Eric,

This is a great post; thanks for taking the time to review and write all of this.

And I just bought a new copy of your book of Amazon; it should be delivered on Tuesday!

[Tom_Doak]

Does either book address the aging, senior, double-digit handicap golfer who needs 2 career shots (and a firm fairway!) to reach a 400-yard par-4?

David:  That's a good question.


Broadie's book, for the most part, does not.  He says the general guidelines for TOUR pros hold up through all classes of golfers, so if that's true, you would be best off blasting two shots as close to the green as you can get and then trying to get up and down, unless water or o.b. is in the mix.


In reality, the ideal strategy would vary based on the quality of your long game, your wedge game, your bunker play, and the specific hole.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'd love to see your book.

Happy to send a copy, so just PM me or email me with an address.

You've already addressed several of the limitations I could see in the book at hand.  Not that the things I want to sort out from it were the point of Broadie's book at all ... without seeing his work I could not have even asked some of my questions.

As you know, it's impossible to write a book that covers all situations and all players. All you can generally do is cover the basics. Tour Players tend to be "Stupid Monkeys" (I mean that in a good way) when it comes to a lot of things, and with this new statistical understanding, their adherence to one way to play, one strategy, is more evidence of that.

Thank you, Matt. I'm glad you enjoy(ed) it.

Does either book address the aging, senior, double-digit handicap golfer who needs 2 career shots (and a firm fairway!) to reach a 400-yard par-4?

The general strategy there would be that being closer to the hole is still generally advisable. But "generally" may not mean even 90% of the time.

First, and of great importance, Broadie's research shows that the idea of "long and wild" is pretty much a myth.

Yes. As players get better, they tend to get straighter. Because they tend to be better.

There are a LOT of myths that a lot of golfers believe, or that have a hold on them, and this is one of them. Generally speaking, people don't really understand how statistics or probabilities work. They miss a putt from 20 feet, they see it as a missed putt, not as a missed tenth of a shot.

And I just bought a new copy of your book of Amazon; it should be delivered on Tuesday!

Thank you. Anyone else interested can just put the name "Lowest Score Wins" without spaces and a .com at the end. I'm not engaging in this topic to sell books, so that's why I'm not just typing the link out or anything.

In reality, the ideal strategy would vary based on the quality of your long game, your wedge game, your bunker play, and the specific hole.

Generally, I disagree with you and agree with Broadie, as I wrote above. Proximity to the hole (given generally similar lies) is the single best determinant of how close the resulting shot is going to come to rest. Shots from 20 yards tend to finish closer to the hole than shots from 40, and those from 60, and so on. Again this assumes similar lies, but for a lot of amateurs, a 20-yard shot from the rough is going to be easier than a 40-yard shot from the fairway. Some may even prefer a 40-yard shot from the rough over a 40-yard shot from a tight fairway. (PGA Tour players don't like rough simply because a) their rough is significantly longer, and b) they're good enough that the "cushion" it provides is NOT a suitable offset for the variability and lack of control of spin, trajectory, etc.).

But I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that Dave and I call bunkers hazards, and I think we say something like "they may as well have red stakes around them for the average golfer."


--------

I'm happy to talk about general stuff here regarding ESC, LSW, etc. but I would like to honor the original intent of the question and the fact that this is GCA and talk mostly about how this stuff affects how golfers play the golf course.

If I might, off the top of my head…

• Angles matter more to average golfers than PGA Tour players because average golfers are often playing lower shots with less spin that bounce and roll a bit, while PGA Tour players are just flying it to a spot and playing it to stop quickly.
• The lie matters more to a PGA Tour player than an average golfer, because PGA Tour players are looking for the ultimate control of spin, trajectory, etc. while the average golfer often hits pretty similar shots from the fairway or light rough. Also, the average golfer's rough is again much lighter than on the PGA Tour. Look at the chart (from ESC) that I posted earlier (5-2): from 100 in the rough a PGA Tour player averages 3.02, but they don't pass that number from the fairway until 170 yards. 70 yards is a huge difference - bomb and gouge isn't entirely accurate. There's still a priority on the PGA Tour to being in the fairway. (Make no mistake though again - longer hitters tend to miss only one or two more fairways per round, so the other times they're also 30 yards closer to the green and in the fairway over their shorter, more "accurate" by fairway % peers. Distance is often still a net benefit.)
• Player expectations at ALL levels are way off (less so as players get better, but even then…). What I mean by this is that players often tend to over-rate some aspects of their games and under-rate other aspects. If you can find situations like this and goad them into attacking when they should play conservatively (or vice versa, but that's probably not as exciting - someone playing conservatively when they should be attacking), I think that can be exploited by GCA.
• I think the idea of camouflaging can be a great tool, in terms of camouflaging where what Dave and I called "light" and "dark" areas can be. For example if you can camouflage a light area (relatively easier shots) as being difficult (a dark area in the Decision Mapping model), golfers will tend to forego those shots, when really they should be playing to them. Sometimes this is as simple as a front-to-back sloping green on a reachable hole, and golfers are trained to lay up to the front side when a play from over the green and from a similar distance is easier.
• I think the earlier discussion about whether you're playing the Road Hole as a tourist or as a 30-year resident of St. Andrews is important. Golfers will play courses differently if it's a once-in-a-decade type of course, or if it's their home course or one they play frequently. On the once-every-few-years type of course, they're more likely to try to play more heroic shots, and on the ones they play more frequently I think they're more likely to play a strategic game. Knowing what type of course you're building (probably not that hard) should IMO shape what kinds of strategic elements you use.
• The same is true for the placement of the shots in the round. A heroic shot on the 18th hole may be great on even a members course because matches will be won or lost there, but if it's the third hole… members may play it conservatively almost every time. I don't think that is anything new, though.
• I think a valid use of trees on the golf course (don't read too much into using the word "valid" - this is off the top of my head) in GCA is to encourage an angle. For example a par five I play has a water hazard (marsh) left, but the hole doglegs right. It's reachable in two if you hit a good drive… down the left-hand side. Down the right-hand side you have to hit a really big cut to get to the green, because trees get in the way. So those looking for an eagle or a tap-in birdie really have a smaller area in which to hit their tee shot.
• Slower greens are easier to two-putt. Faster greens are easier to one-putt and three-putt. Flatter greens are easier to two-putt, too, particularly from relatively short distances as players love to try to see break where none or little exists.
• Average players generally over-weight the value of being in the fairway. This goes to the first bullet point here too because while angles matter, players often don't consider them. There are plenty of holes I can think of where it's better to be in the rough from the correct side than the fairway on the wrong side, but because average players over-weight the fairway, the often aim down the middle of the fairway. This can be exploited or not, I suppose, by a GCA.
• Average golfers under-rate the value of being closer to the green. I think a lot of this is from their expectations. Players will tell us time and time again that they're no good from, say, 40 yards. Yet when we test them, they hit the ball closer from 40 yards than they do from 100. They just seem to think that they should hit the 40-yard shot to three feet every time, so when they hit it to 15 they're pissed/disappointed, even though that's far better than they're going to average from 100. Is this something a GCA can exploit?

I could probably think of more but the Pens game is about to start. 


P.S. NOT a GCA, nor do I pretend to be one, outside of the sketches I drew and still draw on occasion. And though I'll speak in generalities, that's all they are - they may or may not apply to any one person's specific game.

[Tom_Doak]

• from 100 in the rough a PGA Tour player averages 3.02, but they don't pass that number from the fairway until 170 yards. 70 yards is a huge difference - bomb and gouge isn't entirely accurate. There's still a priority on the PGA Tour to being in the fairway. (Make no mistake though again - longer hitters tend to miss only one or two more fairways per round, so the other times they're also 30 yards closer to the green and in the fairway over their shorter, more "accurate" by fairway % peers. Distance is often still a net benefit.)

This was one of my takeaways.  It's not that being in the rough is just as easy, but if you are only missing fairways 20% or 30% of the time, the gain in position on your good shots outweighs the penalty for being in the rough on your other shots.  (And it's not like you hit the fairway 100% of the time when laying up, either.)

[Ira Fishman]

Is there a course that comes to mind that consistently challenges Pros and really good Ams in a way that it seems as if the architect instinctively applied the statistics discussed in the thread even though he was not aware of them?  I have not played it, Oakmont may be one. It does not seem to be an obstacle course, but rather slopes and placement of bunkers force players into “uncomfortable” positions and decisions.


Ira

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Is there a course that comes to mind that consistently challenges Pros and really good Ams in a way that it seems as if the architect instinctively applied the statistics discussed in the thread even though he was not aware of them?  I have not played it, Oakmont may be one. It does not seem to be an obstacle course, but rather slopes and placement of bunkers force players into “uncomfortable” positions and decisions.

I love me some Oakmont, but I think the charm of Oakmont is simply that it's just really freaking difficult. It's unrelenting. The only shots were you get a breather are the literal kick-ins.

Off the top of my head I don't think Oakmont really applies in the context of these "new" stats or understandings.

[Garland Bayley]

First, and of great importance, Broadie's research shows that the idea of "long and wild" is pretty much a myth.  The same skill set that allows a given golfer to hit the ball a long way also allows him to hit the ball relatively straight.  ...

Dr. Knuth is a pretty good statistician, and he says 12% of golfers are " Wild Willy's". How does that mesh with Brodie's claim above?

[A.G._Crockett]

First, and of great importance, Broadie's research shows that the idea of "long and wild" is pretty much a myth.  The same skill set that allows a given golfer to hit the ball a long way also allows him to hit the ball relatively straight.  ...

Dr. Knuth is a pretty good statistician, and he says 12% of golfers are " Wild Willy's". How does that mesh with Brodie's claim above?

Knuth is indeed a good statistician, but he isn't talking about the question of "long but wild" when he used the term "wild willy".  That is a generalized term for players who have a relatively high "anti-handicap" that has nothing to do with how far or how inaccurately a given player is hitting the ball off the tee or anywhere else on the golf course; it has to do with a wider range of all posted scores vs another player with a tighter range of all posted scores.

[John Kirk]

So I will start with one of his conclusions that I found most jarring, which is that putting from above the hole is no different statistically from putting from below the hole.  His stats "prove" that you have a better make percentage from six feet above the hole than from eight feet below the hole, so, there would almost never be a good reason to aim an approach shot to stay below the hole, instead of aiming right at it.

I added the book to my Amazon cart for the next round of purchases.  Sounds like my kind of book.

I was very pleased to hear this conclusion, suggesting it is easier to make putts from above the hole.  Of course, the eight feet below versus six feet above sounds like an unequal comparison.  Nevertheless, it reinforces my belief that I make more downhill putts than uphill ones.  I'd rather have a long steeply downhill putt than a long steeply uphill putt, which for me are the hardest to execute.  I think it's easier to pick a line of maximum break and impart minimum energy to the ball.

Although it's probably not relevant, the physics of shooting a basketball are such that one's margin of error is maximized when the ball is released with the minimum energy required to get it there.  For most of us, that's a trajectory angle of a bit over 45 degrees.

Anyway, neat thread.

[Peter Pallotta]

Statistics was the only course I ever dropped in university - I had no head for numbers, and still don't. 
In that context:
Like everyone else (according to the stats) I can probably get the ball closer to the pin from 40 yards than I can from 100 -- except that on many a Par 4, that 100 yard shot is my 2nd shot while the 40 yard shot is my 3rd ('cause I put my drive into the trees).  If I want lower scores I should go work on my driving.
I'm an average fellow living in an average household, but I don't have 2.2 children.
The old men I've played with who still shoot good scores are able to shoot good scores not because they *do* get two shots close to the green on a long par 4, but because they *can* get two shots close to the green. They're the same ones who on the long Par 3 that follows manage to hit and hold the green with a 3 wood while the rest of us are yanking our 6 irons long and left.

[Michael Felton]

First, and of great importance, Broadie's research shows that the idea of "long and wild" is pretty much a myth.

Yes. As players get better, they tend to get straighter. Because they tend to be better.

There are a LOT of myths that a lot of golfers believe, or that have a hold on them, and this is one of them. Generally speaking, people don't really understand how statistics or probabilities work. They miss a putt from 20 feet, they see it as a missed putt, not as a missed tenth of a shot.

I think the point here is that as you hit it further, the likelihood is that you are hitting it further because you have squarer contact. It's hard to hit it far with a  glancing blow. Squarer contact corresponds with straighter shots. Then furthermore, the actions that increase clubhead speed for the most part also correspond with more efficient and therefore more repeatable motions. So longer players tend to hit it straighter.

Personally I think there is a certain amount of self-fulfilling prophecy to this though. If you look at PGA Tour players, the ones who hit it far have to be hitting it reasonably straight or they wouldn't be on the PGA Tour. There is very little correlation between the PGA Tour and the World Long Driving championships. Those guys hit it way further than PGA Tour players and a lot of them struggle to get more than 1 or 2 shots in the grid out of 8. The grid is 60 yards wide, so far wider than a PGA Tour fairway would typically be.

If you can hit it 320 in the air and straight with it, there's a very good chance we have all heard of you. If you hit it 380 in the air and can only hit 20% of your fairways, there's a very good chance we have not heard of you, unless we happen to be long drive followers. Bottom line IMO is if you're designing your course with the PGA Tour in mind, you are designing it with the needs of maybe 5,000 people worldwide in mind (touring professionals worldwide, plus college kids and high level amateurs who have WAGR rankings). The other millions who play the game will be approaching it differently. From +2 amateurs to people who can't break 110.

Erik - thank you for sharing that tweet about the standard deviations. I'd love to know if that changes much when looked at over a week rather than a round. I've love to know if people have hot weeks putting or with their long games or if it's just round to round (which would suggest it was more random). I would guess that putting is more random (so over a week the std would come down a little bit), but long game players have something which clicks before they start the week and hangs around (so over a week the std would still be around the same). I'm surprised that the putting standard deviation isn't higher.

[A.G._Crockett]

Statistics was the only course I ever dropped in university - I had no head for numbers, and still don't. 
In that context:
Like everyone else (according to the stats) I can probably get the ball closer to the pin from 40 yards than I can from 100 -- except that on many a Par 4, that 100 yard shot is my 2nd shot while the 40 yard shot is my 3rd ('cause I put my drive into the trees).  If I want lower scores I should go work on my driving.
I'm an average fellow living in an average household, but I don't have 2.2 children.
The old men I've played with who still shoot good scores are able to shoot good scores not because they *do* get two shots close to the green on a long par 4, but because they *can* get two shots close to the green. They're the same ones who on the long Par 3 that follows manage to hit and hold the green with a 3 wood while the rest of us are yanking our 6 irons long and left.

 

Pete,

The Broadie data isn't really about you vs a Tour pro, of course; it's about you vs other golfers like you, aka "the old men I've played with".  The most frequent separator between the ones who shoot better scores and the ones who don't is how close they hit the ball on ANY comparable shot.  So if your second shot is 20 yds from the green and mine is 40, and if your third shot is 20 feet from the hole and mine is 40, then that's accounts for most of the separation between us. 


Of course, it may be (and probably most often is?) that a big reason that you are hitting your second shot closer than me is because you hit it farther off the tee in the first place, and that because you have the skills/abilities to hit if farther than I do, you also probably hit it straighter than I do as well.  So maybe I'm hitting my second shot out of the rough to 40 yds, while you're hitting your second shot with a shorter club from the fairway to 20 yards.

It's critical to remember that this macro analysis; we all know a guy who is long but crooked, and we all know a guy who is an incredible putter, and we all know a guy who does lots of stuff outside the norms.  But the general rules are simple: better golfers hit it farther and straighter off the tee, hit it closer on their approach shots, and don't three putt much, at least relative to other similar golfers.  In short, "drive for show, putt for dough" is almost exactly backward, and leaves out the single biggest piece to good golf.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik - thank you for sharing that tweet about the standard deviations. I'd love to know if that changes much when looked at over a week rather than a round. I've love to know if people have hot weeks putting or with their long games or if it's just round to round (which would suggest it was more random). I would guess that putting is more random (so over a week the std would come down a little bit), but long game players have something which clicks before they start the week and hangs around (so over a week the std would still be around the same). I'm surprised that the putting standard deviation isn't higher.

Driving tends to be more stable than putting because putting has a high luck element.

I've long said that ball striking gets you into the top ten on the PGA Tour any given week, and then the hottest/luckiest putter that week takes home the trophy. It's just a generalization to make a point, but I think you can understand what I mean…

In considering standard deviations, remember too that the actual difference between the categories player to player will change, as what Dave and I call the "O-Value" or the number of opportunities. On the PGA Tour, they only have six or seven opportunities to hit shots "around the green" because they hit so many greens. The leader in SG ATG was below 0.6 last year.

The Broadie data isn't really about you vs a Tour pro, of course; it's about you vs other golfers like you, aka "the old men I've played with".  The most frequent separator between the ones who shoot better scores and the ones who don't is how close they hit the ball on ANY comparable shot.  So if your second shot is 20 yds from the green and mine is 40, and if your third shot is 20 feet from the hole and mine is 40, then that's accounts for most of the separation between us.

The 28/39/19/14 ratios are pretty consistent across any two "classes" of golfer, PGA Tour or not. And of course as you note in the next paragraph, SG lets us break down the "separation" between two players on every shot, including the tee shot (though once you're on the green you can stop counting - two-putting from 25 feet counts the same whether your second is a tap-in or a ten-foot comeback putt).

It's critical to remember that this macro analysis; we all know a guy who is long but crooked, and we all know a guy who is an incredible putter, and we all know a guy who does lots of stuff outside the norms.  But the general rules are simple: better golfers hit it farther and straighter off the tee, hit it closer on their approach shots, and don't three putt much, at least relative to other similar golfers.  In short, "drive for show, putt for dough" is almost exactly backward, and leaves out the single biggest piece to good golf.

Yes.

Golf is full of bad myths. Golf is full of people who have completely unrealistic expectations. I can't tell you the number of times 18 handicappers have said goofy things like this to me:

• I'm a great ballstriker, it's just my putting holding me back.
• I'd be scratch with a better mental game.
• I spend 60% of my time practicing my short game because that's where 60% of my shots are.
• 20 foot putts are the most important because that's the length of your birdie putts.
• And on and on…

I'm very excited and proud to have helped particularly the game's younger golfers grow up with the proper ideas on how to actually score.

How it relates to architecture, well again… I almost think that to a PGA Tour player, outside of extreme features (big slopes on the green, deep dangerous bunkers with high faces, etc.) strategy is "solved" and really almost unimportant.

I tend to agree with the Sweeten's Cove video by Scott, not by Andy. I played Dormie Club #14 this way too - laying up is crazy if you can get your 3W or driver into a 60-yard-wide area or smaller most of the time.

[JESII]

Re the 200-225 yard shot: but what happens to 'separation' when the Adams 3 hybrid that a short hitter uses flies higher, stays straighter, goes further and lands softer than does the 5 iron the slightly longer hitter uses?  Maybe like in many other areas of life, the middle ground is disappearing fast: you need to be either a rescue-club-loving-shrimpkin or an every-approach-shot-is-a-wedge-behemoth.  (From a recent article: Luke Donald's coach was an early and under the radar adopter of the Broadie stats, and he says it helped get the not-long-hitting Luke get to # 1. But that was 7 years ago now. Anyone think we're likely to see a repeat?)     

There's a lot here to consider, and I really need to read the book to discuss/challenge.


The above struck me as a place to jump in...Peter, are you asking if its reasonable/realistic for a control type player to become #1 in the world again?

[Peter Pallotta]

AG - thanks. Your last sentence especially (re the fallacy of driving for show and putting for dough) addresses & captures the essence of my post. It's not the statistics themselves that I doubt (as far as I can understand them), it's the application/unpacking of those stats by gurus of all sorts in recent years. For more than a decade, I've read/heard from many who poke fun at the long line of average golfers standing on the range banging away at drivers -- their thought being that we'd all be better off (i.e. shoot lower scores) if we instead practiced putting and/or bunker play and/or strategic thinking etc. Now of course, *all* kinds of practice are necessary -- but their advice & the stats seem to ignore what us mooks on the driving range understand intuitively: that no other single skill/result helps us to score better than being able to get our drives out into the fairway, and as close to the green as possible for our second shot.  (I know that that isn't the focus of this thread/Tom D's interest -- but maybe there are 'parallel intuitive truths' that apply to the tour pros/top golfers.)   

Jim: as per the last line above: yes -- intuitively it seems no accident (or function of strategy or statistics) that a former No. 1 'control player' in this era (Luke Donald) struggles to effectively compete in much the same way as did a former No. 1 control player (Nick Faldo) in the post 2000 technology-leap era.
Again, I know this is not the focus of the thread or of TD's question, but it seems to me that the statistics reflect a certain & particular 'technology-design-maintenance matrix' -- one that is not (or need not be) set in stone.

Peter   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Jim: as per the last line above: yes -- intuitively it seems no accident (or function of strategy or statistics) that a former No. 1 'control player' in this era (Luke Donald) struggles to effectively compete in much the same way as did a former No. 1 control player (Nick Faldo) in the post 2000 technology-leap era.
Again, I know this is not the focus of the thread or of TD's question, but it seems to me that the statistics reflect a certain & particular 'technology-design-maintenance matrix' -- one that is not (or need not be) set in stone.

I wouldn't call Luke Donald a "control" player. He was not a great driver of the ball - short AND fairly crooked off the tee, even when he was near the top of the OWGR.

57th in Driving Accuracy on the PGA Tour in 2011… the year he spent most of the time at #1. 120th the year before in 2010… and rarely inside the top 60 even after that. For a guy who hits it as short as he does, he's got poor accuracy numbers, and so it took a bunch of things being in peak form for him to be #1. It wasn't really sustainable.

[Garland Bayley]

First, and of great importance, Broadie's research shows that the idea of "long and wild" is pretty much a myth.  The same skill set that allows a given golfer to hit the ball a long way also allows him to hit the ball relatively straight.  ...

Dr. Knuth is a pretty good statistician, and he says 12% of golfers are " Wild Willy's". How does that mesh with Brodie's claim above?

Knuth is indeed a good statistician, but he isn't talking about the question of "long but wild" when he used the term "wild willy".  That is a generalized term for players who have a relatively high "anti-handicap" that has nothing to do with how far or how inaccurately a given player is hitting the ball off the tee or anywhere else on the golf course; it has to do with a wider range of all posted scores vs another player with a tighter range of all posted scores.

Dr. Knuth explicitly defines Wild Willy as a long, but inaccurate hitter. I did misremember the %. 12% are Steady Eddie, and 8% are Wild Willy.

[Thomas Dai]

Seems from the above posts like the way to score consistently lower for tour pro level players is to hit it further.
So if a relatively short hitting tour pro has already max-out out on technique, equipment, mental prowess, caddy etc then what’s next? Fitness/strength/flexibility/conditioning presumably?
But if the tour pro bombers have themselves also already max-ed out on technique, equipment, mental prowess, caddy etc and are already heavily into fitness/strength/flexibility/conditioning etc then would it be fair to say that the distance-scoring gap wouldn’t seem to be close-able and generally speaking (ie excepting special tournament, weather, course etc circumstances) it’s the tour pro bombers who’ll do most of the finishing at the top of the leaderboard.
And what does this say for amateurs who haven’t yet max-ed out on technique, equipment, mental prowess etc nor are already heavily into fitness/flexibility/strength/conditioning etc? Where should they look first for help in scoring lower?
Atb

[JESII]

https://www.pgatour.com/long-form/2018/10/22/francesco-molinari-distance-gain.html


TD - check out this article on a previously elite player that I suspect can be the answer to Peters question about the next Luke Donald...

[Michael Felton]

Seems from the above posts like the way to score consistently lower for tour pro level players is to hit it further.
So if a relatively short hitting tour pro has already max-out out on technique, equipment, mental prowess, caddy etc then what’s next? Fitness/strength/flexibility/conditioning presumably?
But if the tour pro bombers have themselves also already max-ed out on technique, equipment, mental prowess, caddy etc and are already heavily into fitness/strength/flexibility/conditioning etc then would it be fair to say that the distance-scoring gap wouldn’t seem to be close-able and generally speaking (ie excepting special tournament, weather, course etc circumstances) it’s the tour pro bombers who’ll do most of the finishing at the top of the leaderboard.
And what does this say for amateurs who haven’t yet max-ed out on technique, equipment, mental prowess etc nor are already heavily into fitness/flexibility/strength/conditioning etc? Where should they look first for help in scoring lower?
Atb

To my mind, the real beneficiary of this information is someone who is working with or raising a youngster who has a keen eye for the game. If they want to really achieve, then it's better to teach them to hit it far than to hit it straight. Especially given the info out there about how longer hitters tend also to be straighter.

[David_Tepper]

"To my mind, the real beneficiary of this information is someone who is working with or raising a youngster who has a keen eye for the game. If they want to really achieve, then it's better to teach them to hit it far than to hit it straight."

Michael F. -

Based on what I have read and heard, that is exactly how Jack Grout taught a very young Jack Nicklaus, so not all that much has changed in the past 60-odd years.


DT

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Seems from the above posts like the way to score consistently lower for tour pro level players is to hit it further.
So if a relatively short hitting tour pro has already max-out out on technique, equipment, mental prowess, caddy etc then what’s next? Fitness/strength/flexibility/conditioning presumably?
But if the tour pro bombers have themselves also already max-ed out on technique, equipment, mental prowess, caddy etc and are already heavily into fitness/strength/flexibility/conditioning etc then would it be fair to say that the distance-scoring gap wouldn’t seem to be close-able and generally speaking (ie excepting special tournament, weather, course etc circumstances) it’s the tour pro bombers who’ll do most of the finishing at the top of the leaderboard.
And what does this say for amateurs who haven’t yet max-ed out on technique, equipment, mental prowess etc nor are already heavily into fitness/flexibility/strength/conditioning etc? Where should they look first for help in scoring lower?
Atb

It's not just about distance, no. And approach shots are more important than driving (though between driving and approach shots, that accounts for about 2/3 of the "separation" between any two classes of player).

[Edward Glidewell]

Dr. Knuth explicitly defines Wild Willy as a long, but inaccurate hitter. I did misremember the %. 12% are Steady Eddie, and 8% are Wild Willy.

He does say they are long and inaccurate, but I'm almost certain that's editorializing rather than anything based on statistical analysis. He's very clear that the people he calls Wild Willies are people who have a wide distribution in posted scores (varying by 20 shots or more), whereas Steady Eddies tend to be within 5-6 shots of a specific number every round.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()