Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

How power helps your golf game (and it’s not how you think)

Published

on

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from Rich Hunt’s 2018 Pro Golf Synopsis, which can be purchased here for $10.99. Stylistic changes were made to the story for online publication.

As a statistical analyst and researcher for Tour pros, caddies and instructors, the most common question I receive is with regards to the importance of power in the game. There is still a strong contingent of golfers that believe that driving distance is the least important metric in the game of golf. I am emphatic when I say that is incorrect.

Research conducted by myself and others has shown that driving distance is one of the more important metrics in the game. Not only have I found this to be the case when studying Tour players, but it applies to the average amateur as well.

In 2013, some friends of mine and I did a study using Trackman and the USGA GHIN to see if there was a correlation between a golfer’s club head speed and their handicap index. There were 137 subjects, ages 15-57 years old that had to have a USGA handicap and have recorded at least 20 scores in the GHIN within the last 12 months. The subjects ranged from PGA Tour players to 25 handicaps.

The findings were than the correlation very strong at +0.91 with a standard deviation of 4.5 mph. Correlation is the a mathematical methodology to determine the strength of a relationship between two variables. The closer the correlation is to 1.0, the stronger the relationship. Therefore, a correlation of +0.91 shows a very strong correlation and it is strong enough to project club head speed based on the golfer’s handicap.

Here is the regression formula that projects the club head speed based on the golfer’s USGA handicap

(Handicap *-1.38899923605806) + 106.486783804431 = Projected Club Head Speed

Here is a table showing the projected club speed based on USGA handicap (note that + handicaps are better-than-scratch golfers)

There has been some confusion from readers in interpreting the data. Understand that this is projecting the club speed and it is not definitive. The projected club speed numbers do not represent the entire population.

The data projects that 68 percent of the population will fall within 1-standard deviation from the projected values. That means that the data projects that 68 percent of the population will fall within +/- 4.5 mph from the projected numbers listed above. 95 percent of the population will fall within 2-standard deviations (+/- 9 mph) of the projected numbers listed above. And 99.7 percent of the population will fall within 3 standard deviations (+/- 13.5 mph) of the projected numbers listed above.

When I posted this table on Twitter, many readers would proclaim that they ‘underachieved’ because their club speed was much higher than the projected numbers based on their handicap. For example, a player that is a -3 handicap is projected to generate 102.3 mph club speed, but generates (or at least claims to) generate 113 mph club speed.

That player has not ‘underachieved’ nor does it mean that the regression analysis is invalid based on their anecdotal evidence. It just means that that they fall outside 95 percent of the projected population of -3 handicaps.

The key to understanding the table and regression analysis is that the study shows that there is a relationship between the two variables, not a perfect 1:1 relationship. And thus, we can use that relationship not only for more accurate projections, but to examine why that relationship exists and what can be done for golfers to use that to their advantage to improve their scores.

For example, a friend of mine is roughly a 20 handicap, but I have clocked him at 124 mph club speed. He never had much in the way of formal instruction and plays about once a month. But he is a 6’6” former college basketball player and competitive softball player. He knows how to do one thing incredibly well in golf; generate speed. It does not mean that speed (power) is any less important. It just means that he is outside 99.7% percent of the population and is an extreme anomaly.

***

One issue with the regression analysis that I posted is that it does not determine why the relationship exists. Do lower handicaps tend to have higher club head speeds because they are utilizing better technique that allows them to generate more speed or does the distance gained actually help the golfer shoot a lower score?

A few years ago, my friend Mark Sweeney from AimPoint Golf found another strong correlation involving distance. This time the correlation was with the length of the average birdie putt for Tour players. The chart looks something like this:

Essentially, the further the player hits the ball off the tee, the more likely their average birdie putt will be shorter in length. Thus, a player that is a lesser skilled putter can sink more putts than superior skilled putters if they are longer off the tee because they are having easier putts to make. I call this The Power to Putting Principle.

For example, Rory McIlroy is one of the longest hitters on Tour and has struggled with the putter in recent years. Brian Gay is one of the shortest hitters on Tour and one of the better putters. Rory may sink more putts in a round because he may have an average birdie putt length of 15-feet while Gay’s average birdie putt length may be at 25-feet. On birdie putts, McIlroy is giving himself putts that have a 22 percent make probability on average compared to Gay having putts with a 10 percent make probability on average. Thus, while Gay is a far superior putter he will not likely make as many putts as McIlroy because Gay’s putts are much more difficult to make.

This is where power provides the greatest advantage to golfers; on the putting greens.

Is there any advantage to being short, but accurate off the tee?

Well, note that the Sweeney study is about the length of the average birdie putt. When a long ball hitter misses the green in regulation, they are more likely to have a longer and more difficult scrambling opportunity. This is because of the times that the bomber misses the fairway by a wide margin and ends up in the trees and has to punch out or they end up in a penalty area.

This is why I advise Tour players that analytics if golf is not a rigid ‘one size fits all’ system. Not only should a golfer accurately determine their strengths and weaknesses and figure out how to utilize them to play the best golf possible, but distance plays a major role in what areas of the game a player needs to focus on. Brian Gay should not try to play Bubba Watson’s game and Bubba Watson should not try to play Jordan Spieth’s game all because their differing lengths off the tee creates different advantages they must exploit and different weaknesses that they must account for.

Applying this to your game

As I mentioned earlier, the Power to Putting Principle states that longer hitters have an advantage on the greens because they are more likely to have short length birdie putts on average than shorter hitters. But shorter hitters have an advantage when the green in regulation is missed.

Thus, shorter hitters need to be more skilled putters to compete with the longer hitters. And longer hitters need to be more skilled with their abilities around the greens in order to convert those up-and-downs like the shorter, but more accurate golfer.

Therefore the best short hitting golfers in the world over the years (Zach Johnson, Brian Gay, Jim Furyk, etc.) have been very good putters. They must be great putters to make up for them having more difficult putts on average than the longer hitters. That is how some of the best long hitters in the world tend to still play great golf despite putting poorly (i.e. Dustin Johnson, Rory McIlroy, Bubba Watson).

But we do see that the long hitters tend to play their best golf when their short game around the green and/or their putting improves.

The misconception from the press and fans becomes that because a bomber improved so much in their putting and/or short game around the green that is what really matters most in golf. The reality is completely different from perception though. They are great players and better than the rest of the world because of their ballstriking and their power. It’s just that when they improve their putting and short game around the green, now they become the very best of the best.

Bubba Watson isn’t ranked #17 in the world due to his short game around the green (ranked 174th last season) and putting (ranked 108th last season). However, if he starts to dominate the Tour and get into the top-10 it is very likely that he will have improved upon those areas and essentially have little in the way of flaws in his game.

How does this apply to the 10-handicap golfer?

The projected club speed of a 10-handicap golfer using my regression analysis is 92.6 mph. If a golfer is a legitimate 10-handicap golfer and generates 85 mph they are likely more accurate off the tee and a better putter than the other 10-handicap golfer that generates 93 mph of speed.

With any golfer, an increase in club speed is likely to improve their handicap. However, if the golfer just wants to compete with other 10-handicaps without working on their golf swing, it is very important that he hit the ball more accurately than his competitors and that he will need to be more skilled with the putter.

If the golfer is a 10-handicap and generates 100 mph of club speed with the driver, they most likely are less accurate off the tee and worse putters than their fellow 10-handicap golfers. However, the key here is that the 100-mph golfer has more options than the 85-mph golfer. The 100-mph golfer can beat out his fellow 10-handicappers by hitting the ball more accurately or by improving their short game around the green to make up for having more difficult scramble opportunities or they can improve their putting.

In a previous example, I showed why Brian Gay has to be more skilled of a putter to sink more putts than Bubba Watson. Gay hits it shorter and has longer (and thus more difficult) putts to make than Watson. But, what if Bubba was equally as skilled or more skilled than Gay with the putter?

You would have an equally skilled or more skilled putter that is putting from more makeable distances. This is why long hitters are so dangerous. If they can keep the ball out of trouble and get four good days with the putter, they are going to contend. And the same applies with amateurs.

Developing young golfers

I am frequently asked by coaches of junior golfers and colleges that have Professional Golf Management programs about what their golfers should focus on developing in their golf game.

My answer is ‘Power and Putting.’

It may sound like a cliché with all the discussion with regards to how the Tour is becoming about who can hit it the longest, but my opinion is based on the math and the historical data with regards to the subject.

If hitting it further is likely to leave you with more makeable birdie putts and the golfer is a great putter, then it is a scenario where a great putter has easier putts to make and that equates to the lowest scores.

Yes, every shot does count. Long approach shots are certainly important and the same with mid-length approach shots. The same goes for having a respectable amount of accuracy and precision. And you do lose strokes if your short game around the green stinks to high heaven. But most players that hit it long have a high level of competence as a golfer. And those that can putt well along with it are at an enormous advantage.

And if I were to just name players that hit the ball long (175+ mph ball speed) and putted great for a significant length of time with no regards to the rest of the game, the players I come up with are:

  • Tiger Woods
  • Phil Mickelson
  • Brooks Koepka
  • Jason Day
  • Rickie Fowler
  • Paul Casey
  • Jimmy Walker

And those are the players that I could measure with ShotLink. While it is speculation, players off the top of my head that were both very long and great putters pre-ShotLink were:

  • Bobby Jones
  • Arnold Palmer
  • Jack Nicklaus
  • Tom Watson
  • Seve Ballesteros

There was more to their games than hitting it long and putting well. But, the math behind hitting it long and putting well is why it was not a coincidence that they were also some of the greatest players to have ever played the game.

Your Reaction?
  • 136
  • LEGIT23
  • WOW15
  • LOL1
  • IDHT2
  • FLOP2
  • OB0
  • SHANK22

Richie Hunt is a statistician whose clients include PGA Tour players, their caddies and instructors in order to more accurately assess their games. He is also the author of the recently published e-book, 2018 Pro Golf Synopsis; the Moneyball Approach to the Game of Golf. He can be reached at ProGolfSynopsis@yahoo.com or on Twitter @Richie3Jack. GolfWRX Writer of the Month: March 2014 Purchase 2017 Pro Golf Synopsis E-book for $10

11 Comments

11 Comments

  1. Tom54

    Jan 30, 2019 at 5:18 pm

    I get the point about power is definitely an advantage over those who do not. I’ve always argued with a buddy of mine that power is not the end all when it comes to advantages. For example,if he pushes a tee ball off line in the same vicinity as mine,his will stay in the rough. Since I’m much longer,mine will be deep in the trees. I just think accuracy should weigh in more when just assuming the power hitter will always have shorter birdie putts.

  2. Tee-Bone

    Jan 30, 2019 at 1:27 pm

    No mention of Strokes Gained Driving? This is the best metric for what Tour players actually gain or lose from driving.

  3. dlygrisse

    Jan 30, 2019 at 12:41 pm

    Thank you for validating what I suspected. I’m the 8-9 capper that doesnt hit it long, I putt pretty well and I have a good short game. I keep the ball in play but don’t make a ton of birdies. Buddies of mine look like they might dominate me during a round, but at the end of the day I often have a lower score. My handicap used to be about 3 shots lower before I injured my back, biggest difference is a loss of speed. While I make a lot of pars and bogeys, they make more birdies, about the same amount of pars and a lot more “others”

    now if I could just get my bad back in order, I might regain some of my speed…..

  4. Scott

    Jan 29, 2019 at 10:53 am

    Interesting. I would have thought a +6 would have a higher club head speed than 115. I thought that the average PGA Tour speed was just south of 120.

  5. James

    Jan 29, 2019 at 9:38 am

    Simplest example for this article is Tiger when he debuted on Tour – pounded past most everyone, putted very well, and, well, we all know the rest about 1997-2003 😉

    • Keith Reynolds

      Jan 31, 2019 at 7:29 am

      But Tiger’s best shot was the second shot to the green. As Richie indicated, having a shorter putt is a great advantage. The advantage of a longer drive is that you’re using a shorter club for your shot to the green.

  6. St

    Jan 29, 2019 at 9:12 am

    It just means that golf is a stupid game. You hit the ball as far as you can and try to avoid trouble. If you can do that, the game becomes really silly

  7. JP

    Jan 29, 2019 at 12:00 am

    I must suck. My club head speed is much higher than my suggested handicap. I’ve got some work to do this year. Haha

  8. Patricknorm

    Jan 28, 2019 at 7:47 pm

    Another great article Rich. With you being a statistician there’s nothing you say or do that cannot be disputed. That’s why I don’t understand why anyone would “ shank” any of your articles. They are pure analytical gold. I think many people cannot understand the pure logic that statistics bring. Or took the time and energy to read it. Like I said, pure gold.

    • Richie Hunt

      Jan 30, 2019 at 10:43 am

      Thanks for the kind words. I will say that with most statistical analysis and research the data is compiled and then there is an interpretation of the data. The interpretation of the data can be more up for debate.

      The problem is that most non-statisticians are arguing their own opinion that is based on their own, long held belief system instead of actually debating the interpretation of the data.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

On Spec

On Spec Special Edition: Houston Open winner Lanto Griffin talks equipment

Published

on

In this special edition of On Spec, Ryan has the chance to interview recent PGA Tour winner Lanto Griffin. Lanto talks about what it’s like to stand over an event winning putt, finding the right wedges, and how testing gear sometimes happens right out of another player’s bag.

Check out the full podcast on SoundCloud below, or click here to listen on iTunes or here to listen on Spotify.

Want more GolfWRX Radio? Check out our other shows (and the full archives for this show) below. 

Your Reaction?
  • 3
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

The “70% Rule” is still the winning formula on the PGA Tour

Published

on

In June of 2010, a year before the Tour launched Strokes Gained Putting analysis, I published an article on my blog (www.NiblicksOfTruth.blogspot.com): “PGA Tour Winner’s – 70% Rule.”

I had been studying the winners of each tour event for years and realized that they all had specific success in three simple stats–and that the three stats must add up to 70 percent

  1. Greens in Regulation – 70%
  2. Scrambling – 70%
  3. 1-Putts from 5 to 10 feet – 70%

Not every one of the three had to equal 70 percent, but the simple addition of the three needed to equal or exceed 70 percent.  For example, if GIR’s were 68 percent, then scrambling or putting needed to be 72 percent or higher to offset the GIR deficiency—simple and it worked!

I added an important caveat. The player could have no more than three ERRORS in a four-round event. These errors being

  1. Long game: A drive hit out of play requiring an advancement to return to normal play, or a drive or approach penalty.
  2. Short game: A short game shot that a.) missed the putting surface, and b.) took 4 or more total strokes to hole out.
  3. Putting: A 3-putt or worse from 40 feet or closer.

In his recent win in the Shriners Hospitals for Children Open, Kevin Na broke the rule… by a bit.  He was all good on the 70 percent part of the rule

  1. GIR’s: 75 percent
  2. Scrambling: 72 percent
  3. 1-Putts 5-10 ft.: 73 percent

But not so good on the three-error limit

  1. Long game: Two driving errors and one approach penalty (three errors).
  2. Short game: A chip/pitch shot that missed the green and took FIVE strokes to hole out (one error).

No wonder it took a playoff to secure his win! But there was another stat that made the difference…

The stat that piqued my interest in Kevin’s win was connected to my 70 percent Rule.  It was his strokes gained: putting stat: +3.54, or ranked first.  He gained 3.5 strokes on the field in each of his four rounds or 14 strokes. I have never seen that, and it caused me to look closer. For perspective, I ran the putting performance of all of the event winners in the 2019 Tour season. Their average putting strokes gained was +1.17.

Below, I charted the one-putt percentages by distance range separately for Kevin Na, the 2019 winners, and the tour 2019 average. I have long believed that the 6–10 foot range separates the good putters on Tour from the rest as it is the most frequently faced of the “short putt” ranges and the Tour averages 50 percent makes. At the same time, the 11-20 foot ranges separate the winners each week as these tend to represent birdie putts on Tour. Look at what Kevin did there.

All I can say again, I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS. Well done Kevin!

For the rest of us, in the chart below I have plotted Kevin’s performance against the “average” golfer (15-19 handicap). To see exactly how your game stacks up, visit my website.

Your Reaction?
  • 80
  • LEGIT11
  • WOW3
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP2
  • OB1
  • SHANK8

Continue Reading

Instruction

The Wedge Guy: The importance of a pre-shot routine

Published

on

I believe one of the big differences between better recreational golfers and those not so good—and also between the tour professionals and those that can’t quite “get there”—is the consistency of their pre-shot routines. It is really easy to dismiss something that happens before the ball is even struck as irrelevant, but I strongly urge you to reconsider if you think this way.

To have a set routine to follow religiously before every shot gives you the best chance to execute the shot the way you intend. To do otherwise just leaves too much to chance. Indulge me here and I’ll offer you some proof.

It’s been a while back now, but I still remember an interesting account on this subject that used the final round of the 1996 Masters—when Nick Faldo passed a collapsing Norman—as his statistical proof. This particular analyst reviewed the entire telecast of that final round and timed the routine of both players for every shot. What he discovered was that Norman got quicker and less consistent in his pre-shot routine throughout his round, while Faldo maintained his same, methodical approach to every shot, not varying by more than a second or so. I think that is pretty insightful stuff.

A lot of time has passed since then, but all competitive tour professionals pay very close attention to their pre-shot routines these days. I urge you to watch them as they go through the motions before each shot. And notice that most of them “start over” if they get distracted during that process.

While I do not think it is practical for recreational golfers to go into such laborious detail for every shot, let me offer some suggestions as to how a repeatable pre-shot routine should work.

The first thing is to get a good feel for the shot, and by that, I mean a very clear picture in your mind of how it will fly, land and roll; I also think it’s realistic to have a different routine for full shots, chips and pitches and putts. They are all very different challenges, of course, and as you get closer to the hole, your focus needs to be more on the feel of the shot than the mechanics of the swing, in my opinion.

To begin, I think the best starting point is from behind the ball, setting up in your “mind’s eye” the film-clip of the shot you are about to hit. See the flight and path it will take. As you do this, you might waggle the club back and forth to get a feel of the club in your hands and “feel” the swing that will produce that shot path for you. Your exact routine can start when you see that shot clearly, and begin your approach the ball to execute the shot. From that “trigger point”, you should do the exact same things, at the exact same pace, each and every time.

For me (if I’m “on”), I’ll step from that behind-the-shot position, and set the club behind the ball to get my alignment. Then I step into my stance and ball position, not looking at the target, but being precise not to change the alignment of the clubhead–I’m setting my body up to that established reference. Once set, I take a look at the target to ensure that I feel aligned properly, and take my grip on the club. Then I do a mental check of grip pressure, hover the club off the ground a bit to ensure it stays light, and then start my backswing, with my only swing thought being to feel the end of the backswing.

That’s when I’m “on,” of course. But as a recreational player, I know that the vast majority of my worst shots and rounds happen when I depart from that routine.

This is something that you can and should work on at the range. Don’t just practice your swing, but how you approach each shot. Heck, you can even do that at home in your backyard. So, guys and ladies, there’s my $0.02 on the pre-shot routine. What do you have to add?

Your Reaction?
  • 18
  • LEGIT6
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending