[Erik J. Barzeski]

I breathlessly await your detailed explanation of that Mr. Physics Major.

Pretty simple. Smash factor doesn't remain constant, and thus ball speed is lower. It's a more glancing blow, so the ball speed is not only lower, but the spin is increased.

Imagine swinging a driver at 115 and hitting the ball flush (about 172 ball speed) with 1900 RPM spin, 0° tilt to the spin axis. Now open the face 30° to that path… and you're not going to get anywhere close to 172. Same is true at 5° - you're not getting 172.

[Rick Sides]

Sure enough played Golden Horseshoe yesterday , thanks for the suggestions guys ! Watched a group of 4 guys all decked out in Puma attire and custom bags tee off from tips . First guy hit a ball in fairway not that far . The other 3 guys was like watching a horror show of hitting balls of trees and spraying shots aimlessly ! Fellas ,,, please pick the correct tees !

[Carl Johnson]

I think that the older you get, and the more you're into "the game," the more you understand the game and the importance of playing from the tees that fit your game.  I think that the TV ads for drivers and the TV announcers who "wow!" on long drives are an issue here.

[A.G._Crockett]

For those who haven't, or won't, read Broadie's book, there is graph (figure 6.3) on p. 104 of the hardback edition.  The graph, based solely on his data across all levels of golfers, shows that as the playing level increases, so do BOTH the distance off the tee AND accuracy off the tee.

"Figure 6.3 shows the longer-straighter pattern across golfers.  The reason long hitters tend to be straighter hitters is simple: Golfers with better skills score lower because they hit better golf shots, and better golf shots are both long and straight.  Tour pros are the longest and straightest of all."  (p. 103) 


To summarize the graph MUCH too briefly, the number of degrees that a drive is offline grows steadily larger as the drives become shorter, with scores becoming higher.  100 shooters are offline between 5 and 11 degrees on drives that anywhere from 160 to 240, 80 shooters between 4 and 9 degrees on drives that average between 220 and 280, and Tour pros only 3 to 4 degrees offline, even though their average drives are approaching 300 yards. 


It is critical to understand that Broadie's research, as well as the book, is primarily descriptive, rather that prescriptive.  Broadie simply points out that a particular golfer can find himself on the graph, and by doing so determine whether he should work on accuracy or distance. 


Broadie also provides a couple of Tour pro pairings that have outlier results. (Remember that the book came out almost 10 years ago now.)  Furyk is crazy accurate off the tee but relatively short, while Daly is crazy long but much less accurate that the norm for a Tour pro.  But Weekley is longer AND more accurate than Maruyama. All of these examples, of course, are just isolated data points.  Broadie's overriding conclusion looking at ALL the data points is this: 

"Looking across a range of golfers from amateurs to pros, a clear pattern emerges: Longer hitters tend to be straighter hitters." (p. 103)

Hope that helps.  I know not everybody likes this, but it's just...data.  Facts are pesky.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

For those who haven't, or won't, read Broadie's book, there is graph (figure 6.3) on p. 104 of the hardback edition.  The graph, based solely on his data across all levels of golfers, shows that as the playing level increases, so do BOTH the distance off the tee AND accuracy off the tee.

AG, I posted that graphic earlier in the topic. 


The added copying/pasting of the accompanying text adds to the information and discussion, of course.

[A.G._Crockett]

For those who haven't, or won't, read Broadie's book, there is graph (figure 6.3) on p. 104 of the hardback edition.  The graph, based solely on his data across all levels of golfers, shows that as the playing level increases, so do BOTH the distance off the tee AND accuracy off the tee.

AG, I posted that graphic earlier in the topic. 


The added copying/pasting of the accompanying text adds to the information and discussion, of course.

Oops!  And thank you!

[Ken Moum]

But apparently it doesn't for several people here?  A few stated they score the same from tees several hundred yards back.  So if they get a wedge in their hand compared to a short or mid iron, they aren't scoring any better.  Either they are mistaken in their judgement of their game or their wedges are not helping them score better.

It's a somewhat common reply I get when I ask why a person is playing from so far back.  In particular, it comes from a handful of women who don't or won't play the shortest tees at my club.


I have played with some of these folks and they aren't actually wrong. What's common among them is that they have absolutely abysmal short games.


By abysmal I mean commonly taking FIVE strokes from less than 20 yards off the green.  Examples include a chunk, a blade, then three putts.  Or blading one over a green and not being able to get the next one on the green.


I think that some (perhaps a lot) of them are better off not being too close to the green, or more likely, there's so much randomness in their scoring that the length isn't an important variable.


The first time I played with one member of my regular game he hit five bunker shots on the first two holes and was only in two bunkers.  He's about a 13 handicapper and commonly putts from 30 yards off the green because his chipping and pitching is so unreliable.

[Kalen Braley]

Ken not to be cynical here, but if its this bad, how worse can it really be to see these kinds of golfers play a par 4 from 300 or 330?  Seems like its gonna be a supreme shit show either way.

I know GCA has a pet peeve of people playing too far back, but in my observation, its the things that golfers must still face otherwise that causes the slow downs.   OB, Water, fairway bunkers, rough, chipping, greenside bunkers, wild greens...or pretty much everything! 

[Thomas Dai]

The wrong tees especially the desire for further back tees directly effects issues that in turn effect golf … land and water availability, rising population, housing and urbanisation, the food chain etc etc. Just saying.
Atb

[Ken Moum]

Ken not to be cynical here, but if its this bad, how worse can it really be to see these kinds of golfers play a par 4 from 300 or 330?  Seems like its gonna be a supreme shit show either way.

I know GCA has a pet peeve of people playing too far back, but in my observation, its the things that golfers must still face otherwise that causes the slow downs.   OB, Water, fairway bunkers, rough, chipping, greenside bunkers, wild greens...or pretty much everything! 

No doubt.  In fact, for some of the people who are like the ones I described, the solution to pace of play is to just not play by the rules.  My wife and I have a new neighbor who wanted to play golf with us and he's a good guy so we happily took him along.  I didn't expect him to be a rules purist and I wasn't disappointed.


He brought along a coworker and the both played pretty fast and loose.  His friend had fairly new irons and wasn't willing to hit them out of the desert so he always moved the ball to the grass, the neighbor hit several "mulligans" and two or three times just dropped one in the fairway.


They played at a decent pace as result, and when it was over the neighbor said he shot 95...not in any universe I inhabit.  But I didn't care, we weren't gambling, so no big deal.


For others, picking up after net double max works fine, and the reality is that some of the people I have experience with only do that two or three times a round.  But it does mean that moving up or back a tee box makes almost no difference in their scores.


No so for me.


At age 73 I am hitting it about 180 on good tee balls unless the course is firm and fast.  And I have a very good short game for a 16.2 index. 


Moving back makes a huge difference for me.

[Garland Bayley]

I breathlessly await your detailed explanation of that Mr. Physics Major.

Pretty simple. Smash factor doesn't remain constant, and thus ball speed is lower. It's a more glancing blow, so the ball speed is not only lower, but the spin is increased.

Imagine swinging a driver at 115 and hitting the ball flush (about 172 ball speed) with 1900 RPM spin, 0° tilt to the spin axis. Now open the face 30° to that path… and you're not going to get anywhere close to 172. Same is true at 5° - you're not getting 172.

So you really have no conception of how any of this is calculated. That physics degree you claimed elsewhere is not doing you any good. You just are of the opinion that bad things happen somehow. You continue to sound like an English lit major.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Hope that helps.  I know not everybody likes this, but it's just...data.  Facts are pesky.

Does he state specifically how his data was collected?

Was any of his work published in peer reviewed scientific journals?

Or, did he simply collect his data, and use it to write his book?

My understanding is that the book is prescriptive of how to approach your strategy for playing a golf course. I have no problem with that, it is probably a reasonably good resource for that.

[Garland Bayley]

... for a 300 yard tee shot to go 30 yards off line, it means that player could have hit it 340 or whatever, and those players are rare.
...

You have used that 340 yard figure a couple times now. I assume that you are trying to relate a ball flight that curves. For a ball flight to go 30 yards off line at 300 yards by curving, the energy that hits a ball 305 yards straight would be more than adequate according to Trajectoware software.

The reason I used the Pythagorean theorem in my previous post was that I believe it entirely possible that Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, or any other athletic strongman could easily line up so that the perfectly struck golf ball could travel straight for 300 yards, and be 30 yards from the intended target line. Certainly I am as bad or worse than that when I address the golf ball. That's what happens when you don't play as often as necessary to maintain (let alone improve) your skills.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Moving back makes a huge difference for me.

Exactly as the Pope of Slope says. The short straight hitter is also outside the averages that make up the handicap and course rating system. You naturally should expect your index to go up by moving back.

[Rob Marshall]

...
Hope that helps.  I know not everybody likes this, but it's just...data.  Facts are pesky.

Does he state specifically how his data was collected?

Was any of his work published in peer reviewed scientific journals?

Or, did he simply collect his data, and use it to write his book?

My understanding is that the book is prescriptive of how to approach your strategy for playing a golf course. I have no problem with that, it is probably a reasonably good resource for that.

It's actually a pretty good read.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So you really have no conception of how any of this is calculated. That physics degree you claimed elsewhere is not doing you any good. You just are of the opinion that bad things happen somehow. You continue to sound like an English lit major.

Garland, I understand this far more than you do, and nothing in your post refutes anything I've said. You simply continue to get things wrong. Among the things you get wrong is "the physics degree you claimed."

The simple truth: if you hit the ball 300 yards with a relatively straight shot, a ball that's hit 30 yards off-line will not fly 300 yards. The energy transferred to the ball is not the same, because the spin loft changes. Heck, that's why pulls or pull-draws with irons often go farther - because the smash factor goes up, spin goes DOWN, etc.

When talking about a driver, it's generally going to go shorter, given that many guys are close to their optimal numbers with their good/normal "straight" shot.

The reason I used the Pythagorean theorem in my previous post

Be honest. The reason you used the pythagorean theorem is that you have no idea how any of this stuff works, so you used fifth grade math to explain a complex three-dimensional issue.

Max Homa played with Bubba, and he said for example (and I know it's anecdotal, and one sample, but it tracks) that when Bubba plays his massive cut off the tee, Max is right there with him. But when Bubba hits it straight, he's 40 or 50 yards longer. Max wasn't specifically talking about distance, he was talking about how impressive it is to play with Bubba and see where he aims, and so on, but the 340 number probably isn't that far off. 305 is definitely off when the player is hitting the ball with curve.

[jeffwarne]

I breathlessly await your detailed explanation of that Mr. Physics Major.

Pretty simple. Smash factor doesn't remain constant, and thus ball speed is lower. It's a more glancing blow, so the ball speed is not only lower, but the spin is increased.

Imagine swinging a driver at 115 and hitting the ball flush (about 172 ball speed) with 1900 RPM spin, 0° tilt to the spin axis. Now open the face 30° to that path… and you're not going to get anywhere close to 172. Same is true at 5° - you're not getting 172.

On the general subject of off-line balls going a long way...off the course
Agreed for the most part, but there are times when the player hits it dead center of the club and the face is square or closed to the path that the smash stays the same, or even increases(lofted club closed)
Players lined up for a fade who simply hit it straight left, or players lined up for a draw, or simply aimed too far right, who flush it with the face square to the path(which is too far right in relation to "target")
I played with a high speed player who absolutely flushed a drive a good 30 degrees off line who hit it across his own fairway, the fairway next door and across  another to OB. The ball was easily 330 from the tee-a high push fade riding a left to right wind helping wind. I drove it in the left rough and our drives were 200+ yards apart, and though he was farther from the hole, his drive traveled significantly farther.
I was almost like he aimed it 30 degrees right and flushed it-I didn't see his process but saw the ball-solidly struck and FAR off line

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Agreed for the most part, but there are times when the player hits it dead center of the club and the face is square or closed to the path that the smash stays the same, or even increases(lofted club closed)

Yeah, I had edited to point out that a pull (typically with an iron) often goes farther. Generally guys are close to optimal with their drivers, so generally anything off-line will result in less total distance. In the case of a pull with a driver, the smash may stay the same (or increase a couple hundredths), but the ball will generally be lower with less spin.

It's not something you solve by Pythagorean theorem.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the intent of what Garland was trying to say still stands though, even if this problem is not best explained using the Pythagorean theorem.

If you hit a ball 50 yards and its off line by 30 yards,  the hypotenuse is a very different distance in relationship to the "straight" side at 10 yards, or 20% shorter.  As compared to if you hit a ball 300 yards and its offline by 30 yards, that difference will be minimal. (less than 2 yards, less than 1% shorter)

[Jeff_Brauer]

... for a 300 yard tee shot to go 30 yards off line, it means that player could have hit it 340 or whatever, and those players are rare.
...

You have used that 340 yard figure a couple times now. I assume that you are trying to relate a ball flight that curves. For a ball flight to go 30 yards off line at 300 yards by curving, the energy that hits a ball 305 yards straight would be more than adequate according to Trajectoware software.

The reason I used the Pythagorean theorem in my previous post was that I believe it entirely possible that Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, or any other athletic strongman could easily line up so that the perfectly struck golf ball could travel straight for 300 yards, and be 30 yards from the intended target line. Certainly I am as bad or worse than that when I address the golf ball. That's what happens when you don't play as often as necessary to maintain (let alone improve) your skills.

I thought I made it clear I was pulling numbers out of the air. 


You can believe what you want, and yes, it's possible for Babe Ruth or a golfer to hit one further off line and a great distance.  As someone pointed out, a ball might go much further right in a crosswind where there is a 200 foot drop.  The basic point remains, that the general overall pattern is longer equals straighter, and it does make sense with physics, i.e., any given club head speed generates only so much energy, which can only fly so high and carry so far. given the characteristics of a golf ball.  The longest shots are one with the least side spin, etc.


In a separate report in 2009, Broadie shows a diagram of 513 shots by both D and A players, and another which shows the average degrees off line by C and D players.  He doesn't tell us where this data was collected (i.e. sea level vs. mountains) or if 513 shots is the sum total of his research.  I suspect there are more data points, but surprisingly, if not, it is still one of the bigger data surveys on how average players play.  The USGA did field surveys of shot patterns when determining the SLOPE system, and more recently, R and A do include some stats on driving distance by handicap in their annual distance reports.


I have actually stretched to diagram of shot plots out to estimate the typical shot dispersion patterns of the C and B players.  As a designer, I can use these averages to plot corridor widths to hopefully keep 2/3, 3/4, or7/8ths of C and/or D players on the short grass.   I can use height, carry, and roll stats from other sources to locate carry hazards, or tree buffers for safety, etc.


That you can imagine a scenario where balls fly further off line than is within statistical boundaries hasn't affected any of my thinking.  I believe any gca would prefer people think the way you do, especially if on juries for a golf ball strike case.  We need the security blanket of knowing that it's impossible to contain all golf shots, and just need to prove, if sued, that we were reasonable in our design assumptions.

[Rob Marshall]

What I find interesting is I think I drive the ball the farther when I hit a slight fade than when I hit a slight draw. No physics involved but I always feel like a draw runs more to the left than a fade runs to the right and ends up father.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What I find interesting is I think I drive the ball the farther when I hit a slight fade than when I hit a slight draw. No physics involved but I always feel like a draw runs more to the left than a fade runs to the right and ends up father.

It's just the impact conditions, the spin loft, the clubhead speed, etc. that you do to hit it. Those who think a draw goes farther than a fade should ask themselves why that's true of lefties, too - when a lefty fade is a righty draw. The ball doesn't know where the golfer is standing, it only knows the inputs it gets at impact: speed, contact location, spin loft, etc.

You may deliver more optimal conditions with a fade than a draw.

Two shots to consider…

165 MPH ball speed, 0 tilt to the spin axis, launches at 12°.
https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/Wnux9K2p/8ba78dee-1e61-4ea9-aa64-616ad9852607.png?v=ba0b22e8aa0127508558863ceac1f3df

Face left open so the ball has only 160 MPH ball speed, launches at 13°, has a bit more spin (from "sidespin") and obviously the spin axis is tilted a bit:
https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/7KuoldB1/178294a1-6c59-4d39-a0e0-a3be155fedc3.png?v=bd2fd9f3f0d2c17c8bd4357bb97d7b06


The end result is this: the better players tend to be both longer AND more accurate if you measure "accuracy" by angles, not by "fairways hit" or something like that.

[Kalen Braley]

What I find interesting is I think I drive the ball the farther when I hit a slight fade than when I hit a slight draw. No physics involved but I always feel like a draw runs more to the left than a fade runs to the right and ends up father.

The end result is this: the better players tend to be both longer AND more accurate if you measure "accuracy" by angles, not by "fairways hit" or something like that.

Erik,

This last part is how I interpreted it as well. For example, using more right triangle calculations:

- If Player A hits it 300 yards and is 30 yards off line, assuming a straight ball with no wind, the angle of the club face is off by 5.7 degrees at impact.

- Whereas if Player B hits it 200 yards, under similar conditions, (no wind, straight ball) they could be off by a larger amount, say 7 degrees, and still only be 24 yards offline.

In that scenario I would certainly consider player A to be "straighter"

[Erik J. Barzeski]

In that scenario I would certainly consider player A to be "straighter"

As would Mark Broadie (and me, and many others). Yes.

I chuckle when they talk about how gosh-darn accurate LPGA Tour players are. Sure, but if the PGA Tour players were hitting 3I off the tee… they'd be pretty darn accurate (by "fairway hit percentage"), too.

[Garland Bayley]

Since no one answered my question about how Braodie obtained his data, I did a little bit of searching online and found this article: https://golf.com/travel/the-man-with-two-brains-stokes-gained-guru-mark-broadies-pioneering-analytics-have-radically-altered-the-game/

If my interpretation of contents is correct, he collected data on course from volunteers that were willing to take the time record that data for him.

It is my contention that he is overstepping when he makes statements like "Longer hitters tend to be straighter. Driver distance and driver accuracy improve with golfer skill."

There are at least two ways his data fall short of allowing him to validly conclude that.
1) His measurements are made by shots taken on course. Since the longest shots will be those that land in short grass and stay in short grass, taking measurements on course automatically skews the data to show inaccurate shots are shorter. Driver shots that land and run out in the fairway are in almost all cases going to go farther than those that do not. So how does he know driver distance improves with skill based on this data?
2) He has not randomized the subjects from which he collects data. The subjects are skewed towards those willing to keeps stats about their game. I would guess that these would be the same people that are interested lowering their scores through stats gathering. I would also surmise that these golfers are throttling back their swings to bring their stats inline with their goals, one of which would be to improve their accuracy.

If he wants to make assertions about longer hitters tending to be more accurate, he needs to allow his random sample to include smash mouth golfers that don't care much about how well they are aimed at the target, and others that might upset the apple cart of his premise. Furthermore, he needs the experiment to be set up to treat all struck balls equally, and not be set up to penalize the offline shots so that it produces an essentially self fulfilling prophecy.

And, Jeff, I guess this means you have to design more conservatively for safety for the public courses where you might more often get baseball, or softball sluggers out for a change of pace in their athletic endeavours.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()