Analytics

[Tim Martin]

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.

That’s what it has to do with analytics.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tim Martin,Analytics is "systematic computational analysis".

If you know how far you carry your 7 iron vs your 6 iron, that's analytics.  If you pace off yardage, or measure it with a laser, or have a GPS device, that's analytics.  If you read putts, that's analytics.  If you go back and the end of the round and count up fairways, GIR's, up and down %'s, sand saves, and putts, that's analytics.  If you have been fitted for clubs, that's analytics, whether Trackman was involved or not.

If you don't do ANY of those, then you are as pure as the driven snow, and truly unusual among passionate golfers.  Read no farther!

On the other hand, if you ARE doing ANY of these, then your issue isn't with analytics, but rather with the DEGREE of analytics that others are using, right?  And that might bring into question WHY you feel that way, right?  (Note that I'm not saying that you SHOULD use more analytics, just wondering why it bothers you that others use analytics to a greater degree than you.) 

Is it possible that you are using a common coping strategy for dealing with being change resistant by attacking change as bad, when instead the real reason for your discomfort is that it's threatening to deal with the possibility that there's a better way, but that you might have to work to change what you are doing?
See?  I warned you not to read on!

[Tim Martin]

A.G.-I’m not resistant to change when I think it benefits the endeavor in question whether that’s golf or something else. As far as “coping” I’m still trying to come to terms with the $14 hot dog at Streamsong.

[Jason Topp]

Golfers have a long history of providing advice that proves to absolutely false.  Examples come from a variety of arenas.  John Jacobs' laws of ball flight are one example from instruction.  There are many others.


More relevant to this issue are traditional maxims such as "lay up to a yardage that leaves you a full shot."  Reams of statistical data show this advice to be poor dating back to at least Dave Pelz studies decades ago. 


Each shot on a good golf course is essentially a bet on yourself that you will be able to execute a shot or deal with the consequences of failure.  Accurately gauging those odds makes the game more rather than less interesting to me. 

[JESII]

Golfers have a long history of providing advice that proves to absolutely false.  Examples come from a variety of arenas.  John Jacobs' laws of ball flight are one example from instruction.  There are many others.

Wait! What?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Wait! What?

Jacobs basically said that "the ball starts where the path is and curves to where the face was pointing at impact."

(If that was actually true, golf would be a bit easier than the reality we actually face.)

Jason, I liked the rest of what you had to say too.

[JMEvensky]

I'm guessing he means a lot of accepted wisdom has been proven wrong.

[Jason Topp]

I'm guessing he means a lot of accepted wisdom has been proven wrong.

I did,  Erik explains the Jacobs reference accurately as well.

[Peter Pallotta]

You mean the ball doesn't start where we hit it, and then curve depending on whether the club-face is open or shut?!


Geez, that's a shocker -- it means Nicklaus had it completely wrong for years!


I know it's too late for him, his playing days are over and his record is his record. But I hope some new emerging Nicklaus doesn't get it all wrong too!


 


   


 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Geez, that's a shocker -- it means Nicklaus had it completely wrong for years!

Fortunately for many, including Nick Faldo, their bodies knew better than their brains on the ball flight laws.

[Peter Pallotta]

Geez, that's a shocker -- it means Nicklaus had it completely wrong for years!

Fortunately for many, including Nick Faldo, their bodies knew better than their brains on the ball flight laws.

Of course, if that's true then the 'new analytics' are as much mumbo jumbo as the 'old analytics': good athletes/golfers will find a way to play the game at a very high level just as they always have -- through feel (or as you say, through 'their bodies'), and despite what they're taught or told to think.

I'm not trying to argue just for arguments sake: I've read and heard Nicklaus countless times describe how he hit a fade or a draw, i.e. set up & swing along the path that you intend the ball to start on, and have the face slightly open or closed at address depending on where you want the ball to land (to determine the curve).

What you seem to be saying is that, whatever JN thought he was doing and told us he was doing, his body was actually doing something different. 

And that's an intriguing idea and one that I probably would have a lot of time for; I think it may be very true for JN or Nick Faldo. Except for the fact that, as a pretty average golfer,  I've managed to hit a heck of a lot of decent draws and fades using exactly the method JN taught.   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Of course, if that's true then the 'new analytics' are as much mumbo jumbo as the 'old analytics': good athletes/golfers will find a way to play the game at a very high level just as they always have -- through feel (or as you say, through 'their bodies'), and despite what they're taught or told to think.

I don't see this as a case of "if that's true, then this other thing is also true."

What you seem to be saying is that, whatever JN thought he was doing and told us he was doing, his body was actually doing something different.

Correct. The ball starts predominantly where the face is pointing (particularly with higher swing speeds and flatter club faces), and curves "away" from the path (unless the path and face match).

And that's an intriguing idea and one that I probably would have a lot of time for; I think it may be very true for JN or Nick Faldo. Except for the fact that, as a pretty average golfer,  I've managed to hit a heck of a lot of decent draws and fades using exactly the method JN taught.

You haven't. Like them, your body "over-rode" what you thought you were doing. Good draws are hit, for a righty, with the face pointing right of the target at impact, and a path that's even further right.

If you have a pine tree in front of you, and the green is directly behind it, and you swing left on a line that would just miss the tree, with a club face pointed right at the tree (and the green), you'd drill the tree if you actually hit it with those conditions.

[Jason Topp]

Geez, that's a shocker -- it means Nicklaus had it completely wrong for years!

Fortunately for many, including Nick Faldo, their bodies knew better than their brains on the ball flight laws.

Of course, if that's true then the 'new analytics' are as much mumbo jumbo as the 'old analytics': good athletes/golfers will find a way to play the game at a very high level just as they always have -- through feel (or as you say, through 'their bodies'), and despite what they're taught or told to think.

I'm not trying to argue just for arguments sake: I've read and heard Nicklaus countless times describe how he hit a fade or a draw, i.e. set up & swing along the path that you intend the ball to start on, and have the face slightly open or closed at address depending on where you want the ball to land (to determine the curve).

What you seem to be saying is that, whatever JN thought he was doing and told us he was doing, his body was actually doing something different. 

And that's an intriguing idea and one that I probably would have a lot of time for; I think it may be very true for JN or Nick Faldo. Except for the fact that, as a pretty average golfer,  I've managed to hit a heck of a lot of decent draws and fades using exactly the method JN taught.   

Peter - my basic understanding is that (for the most part) the ball starts in the direction the face is pointed and curves based on how the path relates to that face.  You can kind of see it if you hit balls on a simulator that measures club data.  The clubface will generally be closed compared to target on a fade and open to target on a draw (at least the good kind).


I used to try and hook around a tree by aiming the face at the tree and swinging right and was confused as to why the ball started more left than I expected and often hit the tree.  So I learned about this the hard way (literally and metaphorically). 


There are a bunch of other components, including where on the clubface you make contact and some weird 3D stuff related to what is referred to as the D plane that I do not really understand. 


I wish I could execute on a golf course as well as I can read about the game!

[Peter Pallotta]

Erik (and Jason) - thanks. 
I'm going to try that once the season starts. [Or at least I'm going to try to try!] You're a teacher and you seem convinced of what you're saying/teaching, so I should listen with an open mind  -- and, if what I think I've been doing (sometimes successfully) isn't what i'm actually doing, it makes sense to at least try to 'think it' in the same way as I 'do it'.
I'll report back on how the lesson has worked out....but I can't promise that i'll pay you for it


Jason -- ugh, yes, I have to admit I've had that same thing happen too...and also, in the opposite way, with my 'go to fade off the tee'

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik (and Jason) - thanks. 
I'm going to try that once the season starts. [Or at least I'm going to try to try!] You're a teacher and you seem convinced of what you're saying/teaching, so I should listen with an open mind  -- and, if what I think I've been doing (sometimes successfully) isn't what i'm actually doing, it makes sense to at least try to 'think it' in the same way as I 'do it'.

Good luck.

[JESII]

Erik (and Jason) - thanks. 
I'm going to try that once the season starts. [Or at least I'm going to try to try!] You're a teacher and you seem convinced of what you're saying/teaching, so I should listen with an open mind  -- and, if what I think I've been doing (sometimes successfully) isn't what i'm actually doing, it makes sense to at least try to 'think it' in the same way as I 'do it'.

Good luck.

Please don't!






This is the classic example of teaching by mechanics versus feel. Both are good and right, but this is the difference.


Does anyone hink Jack would have sworn on the Bible that hie clubface was square to the target? Or do you think he was trying to express a feeling?

[JMEvensky]

Yes, I think he'd have sworn on a Bible--he sincerely believed what he was feeling was physically/ontologically true.


I think this is all part of accepted wisdoms being proved false. For better or worse, analytics (however they're defined) are busting myths in every sport. Good players always knew how to do it, they just may not have fully understood what exactly went into it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This is the classic example of teaching by mechanics versus feel. Both are good and right, but this is the difference.

This isn't "teaching mechanics" - it's teaching physics of the ball flight. It's just knowledge: it's neither mechanics nor feel. How you actually apply this knowledge is often just a matter of how you align yourself at setup. And, both are not "good and right," as the "old ball flight laws" are not right and can lead many people down some VERY bad paths.

Imagine you're hitting a ball that starts a little right and hooks. The old ball flight laws would tell you to swing more out to the right so the ball starts further right. You'd end up hitting bigger hooks. The correct ball flight laws would tell you to aim the face a bit further right, or swing out less.

Feel ain't real - I see that day in and day out. But this is just information, and giving people BAD information can lead to frustration AND a bunch of balls hit right into the tree around which a player is trying to curve his ball.

[JESII]

Hmm


I never heard of a quality teacher advising a natural hooker to swing more in-to-out so I disagree with Erik about old laws.


Quality being the operative word...


Jeff, I agree that Nicklaus generally would only do/say what he 100% believed in...but his explanations of what his body did would only be based on his feel of what he was trying to do. His self-belief results in statements like “I never three putted the last green and never missed a short putt I needed to make.”  This from Rottelas book.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I never heard of a quality teacher advising a natural hooker to swing more in-to-out so I disagree with Erik about old laws.

I never said anything about a teacher telling a student. If you "believed" the old ball flight laws and thought you weren't starting the ball far enough to the right, the old (incorrect) ball flight laws you would suggest you swing out to the right more, as they said the ball started along the club's path. And even in this topic, players have admitted to hitting balls into trees trying to apply this advice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEHiY5iv5u4

I know of at least two people who feel the old ball flight laws played a large role in keeping them from becoming a PGA Tour player. Andy Plummer could tell you a few more.

[JESII]

Erik,


Who exactly preached these "old ball flight laws"?


I would love a single example of a known, quality teacher telling someone to swing more from in-to-out if they were naturally over-hooking the ball.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Who exactly preached these "old ball flight laws"?

A bunch of people. Faldo was still doing it in the 2000s.

Instructors? I'll give you one: Butch Harmon. Brandel Chamblee said it on a Playing Lessons with the Pros with Aaron Rodgers. Tons of instructors thought the ball started along the path of the swing and curved to where the face was pointing. This isn't unknown…

You can find a number of examples of guys telling people to "release the club" or doing something that gets the club face to point more left to fix their slice, too. This misses that most golfers who slice already have a club face pointing left of the target at impact.

[JESII]

Erik,


The Chamblee / Rodgers took me to a clip you generated that said - "Rodgers naturally hit a little cut"


I would love to see a single example of a quality teacher advising a student to swing more to the right to fix their over-hook.


This from you a few posts ago..."Imagine you're hitting a ball that starts a little right and hooks. The old ball flight laws would tell you to swing more out to the right so the ball starts further right."

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The Chamblee / Rodgers took me to a clip you generated that said - "Rodgers naturally hit a little cut"

The Chamblee/Rodgers clip has Brandel saying the old ball flight laws. Rodgers hits a cut, and Brandel tells him how to hit a draw. That advice isn't necessarily "bad" but the point of the video is that he says the "old ball flight laws." And then Rodgers hits a left-to-left hook… because his club face was already left of the target at impact with his little fade, and by focusing on rolling his hands over and a stronger grip, he's just exaggerated that while also swinging right of where he did for his fade.

This from you a few posts ago..."Imagine you're hitting a ball that starts a little right and hooks. The old ball flight laws would tell you to swing more out to the right so the ball starts further right."

I know what I said. According to the "old ball flight laws" (the incorrect ones), to start the ball further to the right, you'd have to swing more to the right. They said the ball started on the path.

Just like people who hit a pull-slice, and an old-time instructor says "your face is open, you need to close the face more," even though their face is already left of the target (for a righty).

Edit: Heck, in this article from 2018, Butch acknowledges that launch monitors have taught us the correct ball flight laws… and then gives advice in support of the old incorrect ones. If you actually swung right or left of a club face aimed "at the target," and without gear effect (i.e. a mis-hit), your ball would over-curve and miss the target.

Here's the procedure, starting with the fade (above). After sighting your target from behind the ball, step in and aim the face at the target. Next, set your feet, making sure your stance line is well to the left. (Remember, a square stance is parallel-left of the target line, so you have to be farther left than that.) Your body lines—knees, hips and shoulders—should point where your feet point. Then swing where your body is aimed. The ball will start left and curve right.

If you actually do that, and return at impact like you set up (which is the intent), the ball will barely start left and will over-fade and miss right.

I watched a guy giving a lesson almost a decade ago. His student was a 20-year-old with a case of the duck hooks. The quacky ones. He taught him to swing out to the right more, as the old, incorrect BFLs would tell you would start the ball further to the right. It's an example of how the old, incorrect BFLs could send someone down the wrong path. The guy hit only about three straight-ish balls the whole session, and they were massive pushes. Players who slice aren't doing so with an "open" club face (to the target) very often: most often it's left or "closed" relative to the target. Yet the common instruction is to get them, using the old BFLs, to roll the face closed more. Great… if they want to hit a dead pull.

[JESII]

Erik,


You said - "Imagine you're hitting a ball that starts a little right and hooks. The old ball flight laws would tell you to swing more out to the right so the ball starts further right."

I asked what the old ball flight laws were and who preaches them...and most importantly, who ever said the above. You couldn't answer.

Pretty simple.

What you've done is prove my statement that there's mechanical teaching, based on exact angles and physics (imagine Iron Byron slightly off kilter). And there's teaching feels. That is, when your body is doing one thing and the teacher needs you to do something different, YOU NEED TO FEEL a different movement ad they need to explain what you should strive to feel.. The best teachers need to blend physical facts with your body feels. They need to understand what creates proper contact, and Butch certainly does that.