Jump to content

Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at GolfWRX such as viewing all the images, interacting with members, access to all forums and eligiblility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

- - - - -

I want to challenge Mark Broadie


153 replies to this topic

#61 iteachgolf

iteachgolf

    Legend

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,468 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 14489
  • Joined: 04/30/2006
  • Location:Jacksonville, FL
GolfWRX Likes : 4799

Posted 29 August 2017 - 02:14 PM

View PostRi_Redneck, on 29 August 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

View PostGeorge1174, on 29 August 2017 - 01:33 AM, said:

View Postjuststeve, on 28 August 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

Everyone will derive benefit from improvement of the long game but we ought not lose sight of the fact that improvement in the long game is much harder to achieve than improvement in a lot of other aspects of the game.   For example almost everyone can become very competent putting inside five feet, but almost no one can drive the ball like Dustin Johnson.  Therefore it would be wise to devote your practice time to areas where you are most likely to see results.

Steve
So DJ bought a Trackman to work on his wedges instead of getting the last 1-2% out of his Driver.
What I think when I read "It's better to hit 9I from the rough than 5I from the fairway" is "how the hell am I going to get another 40yds out of my Driver?" I have a full-time day (sometimes day and night) job, a wife and two daughters. I don't have the time to work my a** off in the gym for those 40 yds. But I can learn to pitch and chip close to save par from off the green where I hit my 5I.

This was the quote that I had the most issue with. It totally depends on the type of grass and condition of the rough. Sure, on most munis, this is absolutely true. But I have played tons of courses where the rough was VERY penal and the 5i from the fairway was far easier than the 9i from the rough. So all this is dependent on the course conditions. I played a course last week where you had total death outside the first cut in the fairway and all around the greens. Most stressful golf I ever played. You literally were dropping a ball if you were outside the first cut. The fairways and rough were paspalum which is tough as h*ll and hard to hit through. Even shots from the first cut were iffy. The rough around the greens heavily affected my short game. Didn't succeed in a single up and down through the entire round. So it's best to know your course before playing for a serious score and altering your strategy accordingly.

BT

On tour where the rough is much more penal than your average muni and more penal that what almost all amateurs regularly play the proximity to the hole is significantly closer with 9 iron from the rough than a 5 iron from the fairway.  And they are much better long iron players than your average golfer.  I don't think most ams realize how few greens they hit with a 5 iron in their hand and how far from the hole they actually end up.  The GIR % will be considerably higher with a 9 iron even in thick rough than a 5 iron from the fairway.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


1

#62 jasonfish11

jasonfish11

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 396358
  • Joined: 09/17/2015
  • Location:Virginia Beach
  • Handicap:10
GolfWRX Likes : 28

Posted 29 August 2017 - 02:16 PM

View PostNorth Butte, on 29 August 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

The strokes gained tables cannot distinguish between using the putter from 6 feet off the green  with 15 feet of green to work with versus using a wedge to Chip with when you are 20 feet from the hole but 12 feet of that is fringe.

So it depends on the SG application you are using.  Broadie specifically states he counts all times using a putter as a "putt" if they are on or off the green.  So his stats would certainly differentiate between those situations.  

Also I know that gamegolf allows you to toggle to determine if you were on or off the green.  To eliminate the problem you state I make sure that I always toggle on the green when I'm using a putter.  That way all of my shots with a putter count towards my SG putting and shots w/o a putter count towards SG short game.

View PostNorth Butte, on 29 August 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

I have a great many of the former situations and relatively few of the latter which causes the SG app to tell me I have a much better inside 20 yard short game  then I do in fact. I probably ought to count most of my putts from the fringe as putts rather than chips.

Yes you should lol.

2

#63 DaveLeeNC

DaveLeeNC

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,628 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 54590
  • Joined: 04/27/2008
  • Location:Pinehurst, NC
GolfWRX Likes : 453

Posted 29 August 2017 - 05:00 PM

I used a Broadie type approach to analyse my own game from 2003 until 2014. For my game on the courses I play long game quality had a slightly higher correlation with scoring than did short game. The difference was not huge.

dave

3

#64 jasonfish11

jasonfish11

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 396358
  • Joined: 09/17/2015
  • Location:Virginia Beach
  • Handicap:10
GolfWRX Likes : 28

Posted 29 August 2017 - 05:00 PM

View Postdornstar, on 29 August 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

When it comes to whether to layup or hit driver, I think Scott Fawcett's methodology is the way to go.

1. Is there 65 yards between penalty situations?
2. Is the safe landing area (not the fairway) greater than 40 yards (trees, bunkers, etc?

If the answer is yes to those.... you hit driver. If not, you need to figure out if 3 wood or a hybrid removes that trouble. Rarely are you going to benefit from hitting an iron. You can't save or plan for your truly horrifically bad shots. There's no saving those and those are gone whether it's a driver or a 3 wood. Your goal is to try to fit your average shot into the design of the hole.



Seriously, this video has made a bigger impact to my game than anything I've read or seen in my 20+ years of playing this game. It basically puts strokes gained into action.

So how does he handle trees that you can't hit over.  Lets say a hole is a pretty sharp dog leg left with OB right of the FW and tall tees down the left I carry my driver 250 yards on average.  Lets say the hazard to hazard distance is 200+ yards and the pinch width is 100+ yards at that 250 yard distance.  But because of the angle I have to take off the tee box to avoid hitting trees on the left side of the FW I'd be landing my driver on the right half of the FW part way around the dog leg.  So on the furthest left line I could take (due to not being able to get it up and over the trees) I'd be looking at an actual "pinch" width of 25-30 yards.  

Would it be correct to look at this hole as hazard to hazard is greater than 65 yards, pinch width less than 40 yards.  I can't imagine looking at the pinch width on this hole as being more than 25-30 yards (assuming driver) given I'm forced to start the ball right of the trees.

And this is a real example on a hole I normally hit 3w on.

4

#65 DaveLeeNC

DaveLeeNC

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,628 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 54590
  • Joined: 04/27/2008
  • Location:Pinehurst, NC
GolfWRX Likes : 453

Posted 29 August 2017 - 05:08 PM

View PostNorth Butte, on 28 August 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

View Postjuststeve, on 28 August 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

Everyone will derive benefit from improvement of the long game but we ought not lose sight of the fact that improvement in the long game is much harder to achieve than improvement in a lot of other aspects of the game.   For example almost everyone can become very competent putting inside five feet, but almost no one can drive the ball like Dustin Johnson.  Therefore it would be wise to devote your practice time to areas where you are most likely to see results.

Steve

One thing that can't show up in a "game analytics" method like Strokes Gained is (in my humble opinion) the degree to which being very competent with the putter inside 5-6 feet can influence your choices of how to play other shots. As one of the best (and oldest) golfers I know explained it to me once...

If you *know* you're going to make that 5-footer coming back then you don't have to be careful on your first putt and you're more likely to make it. Likewise in trying to hole out chips and bunker shots, you can get it to the hole with some pace without being scared of going a few feet past. And then if you're confident you can get up and down you don't have to be aiming away from the hole to try and hit the center of the green.

He says that's why he spends more time practicing 6-foot putts than anything else. Because once you've got that down, the rest of the game gets easier all the way back to the tee.

IIRC, Raymond Floyd calls the 6 ft putt the most important shot in golf (for his game anyway).

Dave


5

#66 Rusty1885

Rusty1885

    Advanced

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 311515
  • Joined: 04/27/2014
  • Location:SoCal
  • Handicap:2.1
GolfWRX Likes : 101

Posted 30 August 2017 - 02:36 AM

The topic is about how ESC would help everyone including high handicappers which happens to be the majority of golfers.

Golf is not numbers for high handicappers during their rounds of golf. Mechanical thought(s) alone is killing their scoring potential, if they add shots stats it would kill their game even more.  What helps high handicappers is to choose conservative target and swing aggressively, but they usually do the opposite by making bold choices and tentative swing.  Golfers needs to see successfully executed shots over and over to imprint into their system and generate strong memory attach to good shots. Hitting driver buckets after buckets on the range is not going to necessarily transfer to the course, golfers have been doing that since the days of Harry Vardon. The journey to long drives down the fairways starts with hitting 5 wood down the fairway enough times to move on to 3 wood, and so on.

The best way to improve the game of golf is still learning from green to tee.  Take the time to develop their short game, then they can be more successful with the shorter shots in the rough. Partial swings inside 75 yards even from the fairways are tough for HH, they are lucky to get away with a chili dip, followed by a bladed shots to end up near the green. ESC is mere academic for them.
Take Dead Aim

6

#67 matthewb

matthewb

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 34838
  • Joined: 07/17/2007
GolfWRX Likes : 402

Posted 30 August 2017 - 05:41 AM

View PostRusty1885, on 30 August 2017 - 02:36 AM, said:

The topic is about how ESC would help everyone including high handicappers which happens to be the majority of golfers.

Golf is not numbers for high handicappers during their rounds of golf. Mechanical thought(s) alone is killing their scoring potential, if they add shots stats it would kill their game even more.  What helps high handicappers is to choose conservative target and swing aggressively, but they usually do the opposite by making bold choices and tentative swing.  Golfers needs to see successfully executed shots over and over to imprint into their system and generate strong memory attach to good shots. Hitting driver buckets after buckets on the range is not going to necessarily transfer to the course, golfers have been doing that since the days of Harry Vardon. The journey to long drives down the fairways starts with hitting 5 wood down the fairway enough times to move on to 3 wood, and so on.

The best way to improve the game of golf is still learning from green to tee.  Take the time to develop their short game, then they can be more successful with the shorter shots in the rough. Partial swings inside 75 yards even from the fairways are tough for HH, they are lucky to get away with a chili dip, followed by a bladed shots to end up near the green. ESC is mere academic for them.

It's simpler than this.

Strokes Gained tells a golfer--any golfer--how well they've performed against a benchmark from a particular distance and lie condition.

It doesn't tell a golfer how to swing nor does it tell a golfer what club to hit.

The theory is distinct from the application.

7

#68 gentles

gentles

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,075 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 18758
  • Joined: 09/01/2006
  • Location:New Zealand
GolfWRX Likes : 127

Posted 30 August 2017 - 07:59 AM

View Postiteachgolf, on 29 August 2017 - 02:14 PM, said:

View PostRi_Redneck, on 29 August 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

View PostGeorge1174, on 29 August 2017 - 01:33 AM, said:

View Postjuststeve, on 28 August 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

Everyone will derive benefit from improvement of the long game but we ought not lose sight of the fact that improvement in the long game is much harder to achieve than improvement in a lot of other aspects of the game.   For example almost everyone can become very competent putting inside five feet, but almost no one can drive the ball like Dustin Johnson.  Therefore it would be wise to devote your practice time to areas where you are most likely to see results.

Steve
So DJ bought a Trackman to work on his wedges instead of getting the last 1-2% out of his Driver.
What I think when I read "It's better to hit 9I from the rough than 5I from the fairway" is "how the hell am I going to get another 40yds out of my Driver?" I have a full-time day (sometimes day and night) job, a wife and two daughters. I don't have the time to work my a** off in the gym for those 40 yds. But I can learn to pitch and chip close to save par from off the green where I hit my 5I.

This was the quote that I had the most issue with. It totally depends on the type of grass and condition of the rough. Sure, on most munis, this is absolutely true. But I have played tons of courses where the rough was VERY penal and the 5i from the fairway was far easier than the 9i from the rough. So all this is dependent on the course conditions. I played a course last week where you had total death outside the first cut in the fairway and all around the greens. Most stressful golf I ever played. You literally were dropping a ball if you were outside the first cut. The fairways and rough were paspalum which is tough as h*ll and hard to hit through. Even shots from the first cut were iffy. The rough around the greens heavily affected my short game. Didn't succeed in a single up and down through the entire round. So it's best to know your course before playing for a serious score and altering your strategy accordingly.

BT

On tour where the rough is much more penal than your average muni and more penal that what almost all amateurs regularly play the proximity to the hole is significantly closer with 9 iron from the rough than a 5 iron from the fairway.  And they are much better long iron players than your average golfer.  I don't think most ams realize how few greens they hit with a 5 iron in their hand and how far from the hole they actually end up.  The GIR % will be considerably higher with a 9 iron even in thick rough than a 5 iron from the fairway.

Don't forget the % (even if small on some courses) where you draw a good lie in the rough, meaning it is essentially like hitting from the fairway too. Sure you're going to get the occasional like where you can barely advance it, but that doesn't happen every time I hit it in the rough.

ESC is all about average shots, not exceptions or 1 offs.
Ping G30 LS Tec 10.5 - Tour 65s
Callaway XR Pro 14/18 Fairways - Matrix Red Tie 7Q3 Stiff
Callaway XR Pro 23 Hybrid - Red Tie HQ3 Stiff
Ping i25 5-W CFS Stiff + 0.5"
Ping Glide 50/54/58 CFS Wedge + 0.5"
Ping iWi d66

8

#69 Gamble Gamble

Gamble Gamble

    Good Luck!

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 2,150 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 198076
  • Joined: 08/14/2012
  • Location:Steve's Prince of Steaks
GolfWRX Likes : 1703

Posted 30 August 2017 - 08:15 AM

View Postmatthewb, on 30 August 2017 - 05:41 AM, said:

View PostRusty1885, on 30 August 2017 - 02:36 AM, said:

The topic is about how ESC would help everyone including high handicappers which happens to be the majority of golfers.

Golf is not numbers for high handicappers during their rounds of golf. Mechanical thought(s) alone is killing their scoring potential, if they add shots stats it would kill their game even more.  What helps high handicappers is to choose conservative target and swing aggressively, but they usually do the opposite by making bold choices and tentative swing.  Golfers needs to see successfully executed shots over and over to imprint into their system and generate strong memory attach to good shots. Hitting driver buckets after buckets on the range is not going to necessarily transfer to the course, golfers have been doing that since the days of Harry Vardon. The journey to long drives down the fairways starts with hitting 5 wood down the fairway enough times to move on to 3 wood, and so on.

The best way to improve the game of golf is still learning from green to tee.  Take the time to develop their short game, then they can be more successful with the shorter shots in the rough. Partial swings inside 75 yards even from the fairways are tough for HH, they are lucky to get away with a chili dip, followed by a bladed shots to end up near the green. ESC is mere academic for them.

It's simpler than this.

Strokes Gained tells a golfer--any golfer--how well they've performed against a benchmark from a particular distance and lie condition.

It doesn't tell a golfer how to swing nor does it tell a golfer what club to hit.

The theory is distinct from the application.

The purpose of ESC and Broadie's research was to illuminate the probabilities of certain occurrences in golf.  ESC/SG is a way to quantify different strategies for getting around the golf course while looking for the most statistically probable way to produce the lowest score.  

This works for ALL players and can be adapted based upon each players strengths and faults.  

The reason there is so much pushback on this is because it quantitatively disproves many old adages that people have believed throughout their lives and possibly was handed down by a person they respected who also taught them golf.  People would rather walk in the territory they know than search for truth in an uncomfortable area and it is difficult to think of a more frightful region for an ignorant person than quantitative analytics.

Edited by Gamble Gamble, 30 August 2017 - 08:16 AM.

Ping G400 9* Diamana 70 X
Ping Rapture 13* Tour AD-MT 7S
Cobra Baffler 18* Matrix Red Tie Stiff
Ping G25 3 Hybrid 20* Tour AD-UT 85S
Taylormade M1 4i-AW Modus 120S (hs)
Callaway MD2 54* Raw KBS Wedge
Callaway PM 60* RawKBS Wedge

Ping Cadence Ketsch Heavy
Taylormade Tour Preferred X


9

#70 North Butte

North Butte

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,970 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
  • Handicap:25
GolfWRX Likes : 3048

Posted 30 August 2017 - 08:37 AM

And the flip side is why Dave Pelz's books were by comparison relatively well received. It was putting a geeky, analytical imprint of authenticity on what was basically a minor re-jiggering of the basic conventional wisdom (putting is most important, short game is where nobody practices enough) of the day. Also, the Pelz books had much more emphasis on concrete drills or methods the reader could adopt to improve.

Broadie out of commercial expedience had to include some lag putting drills or whatever in his book. But a good bit of the Short Game Bible wasn't all that different from your routine Golf Digest instructional articles. Broadie doesn't give any concrete "how to work on your game" advice akin to the "clock method" stuff or the "always leave the flag in" or "putt so the ball stops 17" past the hole" which are the most quoted and memorable parts of Pelz's work.

A sensible man will realize that the eyes may be confused in two ways---by a change from light to darkness or from darkness to light; and he will recognize the same thing happens to the soul.

--Plato

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


10

#71 bph7

bph7

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,688 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 135739
  • Joined: 08/08/2011
  • Location:DFW
GolfWRX Likes : 2643

Posted 30 August 2017 - 08:59 AM

View PostGamble Gamble, on 30 August 2017 - 08:15 AM, said:

View Postmatthewb, on 30 August 2017 - 05:41 AM, said:

View PostRusty1885, on 30 August 2017 - 02:36 AM, said:

The topic is about how ESC would help everyone including high handicappers which happens to be the majority of golfers.

Golf is not numbers for high handicappers during their rounds of golf. Mechanical thought(s) alone is killing their scoring potential, if they add shots stats it would kill their game even more.  What helps high handicappers is to choose conservative target and swing aggressively, but they usually do the opposite by making bold choices and tentative swing.  Golfers needs to see successfully executed shots over and over to imprint into their system and generate strong memory attach to good shots. Hitting driver buckets after buckets on the range is not going to necessarily transfer to the course, golfers have been doing that since the days of Harry Vardon. The journey to long drives down the fairways starts with hitting 5 wood down the fairway enough times to move on to 3 wood, and so on.

The best way to improve the game of golf is still learning from green to tee.  Take the time to develop their short game, then they can be more successful with the shorter shots in the rough. Partial swings inside 75 yards even from the fairways are tough for HH, they are lucky to get away with a chili dip, followed by a bladed shots to end up near the green. ESC is mere academic for them.

It's simpler than this.

Strokes Gained tells a golfer--any golfer--how well they've performed against a benchmark from a particular distance and lie condition.

It doesn't tell a golfer how to swing nor does it tell a golfer what club to hit.

The theory is distinct from the application.

The purpose of ESC and Broadie's research was to illuminate the probabilities of certain occurrences in golf.  ESC/SG is a way to quantify different strategies for getting around the golf course while looking for the most statistically probable way to produce the lowest score.  

This works for ALL players and can be adapted based upon each players strengths and faults.  

The reason there is so much pushback on this is because it quantitatively disproves many old adages that people have believed throughout their lives and possibly was handed down by a person they respected who also taught them golf.  People would rather walk in the territory they know than search for truth in an uncomfortable area and it is difficult to think of a more frightful region for an ignorant person than quantitative analytics.

This last paragraph is one of the best descriptions I've ever heard about this issue. People just don't want to be told that, upon actually looking at the data, short game doesn't make nearly as much of a difference as long game. They've heard otherwise their entire golfing lives, and use it to validate there approach to the game, which is likely extremely infficient.

It all comes down to a simple question really:  what is the DIFFERENCE between you and a tour pro on average closest to the pin (including holdouts) on 1 foot putts?  Does this DIFFERENCE increase or decrease on 3 foot putts?  How bout 9 foot putts?  How bout 27 footers? 27 yard chips? 81 yard approach shots? 243 yard approach shots? Tee shots on long par 5s?  If anyone thinks the difference between closest to pin on one foot putts is greater than that on tee shots on long par fives, you are delusional.

11

#72 jasonfish11

jasonfish11

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 396358
  • Joined: 09/17/2015
  • Location:Virginia Beach
  • Handicap:10
GolfWRX Likes : 28

Posted 30 August 2017 - 09:13 AM

View PostGamble Gamble, on 30 August 2017 - 08:15 AM, said:

The reason there is so much pushback on this is because it quantitatively disproves many old adages that people have believed throughout their lives and possibly was handed down by a person they respected who also taught them golf.  People would rather walk in the territory they know than search for truth in an uncomfortable area and it is difficult to think of a more frightful region for an ignorant person than quantitative analytics.

It's basically a slight deviation to the allegory of the cave concept.

Except this time you give the people in the cave the information to validate the world isn't just shadows on the cave wall and some of them choose not to believe you.  But that really isn't your fault.  Let them live in their blissful ignorance and enjoy the cave wall shadows.

12

#73 North Butte

North Butte

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,970 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
  • Handicap:25
GolfWRX Likes : 3048

Posted 30 August 2017 - 09:16 AM

I actually work in a field (totally unrelated to golf) in which this sort of analytics question arises. There's always the easy part and the hard part of designing any strategy for improving something, whether that something is a product or a golf game, a medical therapy, an investement or a government policy.

The easy part is what Broadie's book comes close to putting to rest. Where are the differences between a Tour player and a wannabe Tour player? Or between a +2 handicapper and a 10 handicapper who wants to be better than scratch. Using the Stroke Gained framework and his various datasets (ShotLink plus whatever amateur golf data he has gathered) we now have pretty convincing answers to that sort of question.

The hard part is the relative difficulty in improving the things that make the biggest difference. As far as I've seen, Broadie or Dave Pelz or anyone else is yet to gather convincing data concerning this part. We all have a sense that working on improving 1-foot putts is a fool's errand. But among elements of the game with similar impacts, it's an open question.

There's no data at all to say whether that 10-handicapper is going to find 30 more yards with the driver easier than he'll find cutting his proximity to the hole in half from 125-150 yards. If Strokes Gained tells him that he loses 2 strokes/round relative to Scratch with his driver and 2 strokes/round relative to scratch with his approach proximity, how does he choose which one to dedicate a few hundred hours of practice towards?

Edited by North Butte, 30 August 2017 - 09:17 AM.

A sensible man will realize that the eyes may be confused in two ways---by a change from light to darkness or from darkness to light; and he will recognize the same thing happens to the soul.

--Plato

13

#74 jasonfish11

jasonfish11

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 396358
  • Joined: 09/17/2015
  • Location:Virginia Beach
  • Handicap:10
GolfWRX Likes : 28

Posted 30 August 2017 - 09:28 AM

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 09:16 AM, said:

If Strokes Gained tells him that he loses 2 strokes/round relative to Scratch with his driver and 2 strokes/round relative to scratch with his approach proximity, how does he choose which one to dedicate a few hundred hours of practice towards?

I would ask why are these 2 items mutually exclusive.  Both are full swing, and I would argue that improving the full swing would improve both aspects.

But your point is valid and could be changed to driving and putting.  Intuitively it seems like picking up 2 strokes putting would be quicker and easier than 2 strokes driving.  But as you said there really isn't any empirical data to validate that statement.

14

#75 North Butte

North Butte

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,970 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
  • Handicap:25
GolfWRX Likes : 3048

Posted 30 August 2017 - 09:31 AM

Mostly because we don't have a Daddy Deeppockets paying to collect that sort of data, as Broadie had when the PGA Tour started gathering data on every shot on Tour. How do you massively collect data (unambiguous, systematic data) on how much time it effort it takes to improve a 13-handicapper's wedge game?

A sensible man will realize that the eyes may be confused in two ways---by a change from light to darkness or from darkness to light; and he will recognize the same thing happens to the soul.

--Plato

15

#76 Gamble Gamble

Gamble Gamble

    Good Luck!

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 2,150 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 198076
  • Joined: 08/14/2012
  • Location:Steve's Prince of Steaks
GolfWRX Likes : 1703

Posted 30 August 2017 - 09:45 AM

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

Mostly because we don't have a Daddy Deeppockets paying to collect that sort of data, as Broadie had when the PGA Tour started gathering data on every shot on Tour. How do you massively collect data (unambiguous, systematic data) on how much time it effort it takes to improve a 13-handicapper's wedge game?

https://www.arccosgolf.com/

Arccos gives us the ability to have our own shotlink like data to apply to our game and it is half the price of a new driver.

Ping G400 9* Diamana 70 X
Ping Rapture 13* Tour AD-MT 7S
Cobra Baffler 18* Matrix Red Tie Stiff
Ping G25 3 Hybrid 20* Tour AD-UT 85S
Taylormade M1 4i-AW Modus 120S (hs)
Callaway MD2 54* Raw KBS Wedge
Callaway PM 60* RawKBS Wedge

Ping Cadence Ketsch Heavy
Taylormade Tour Preferred X


16

#77 matthewb

matthewb

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 34838
  • Joined: 07/17/2007
GolfWRX Likes : 402

Posted 30 August 2017 - 09:54 AM

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

Mostly because we don't have a Daddy Deeppockets paying to collect that sort of data, as Broadie had when the PGA Tour started gathering data on every shot on Tour. How do you massively collect data (unambiguous, systematic data) on how much time it effort it takes to improve a 13-handicapper's wedge game?

Broadie had a good set of amateur data prior to getting access to the PGA tour data. See this research paper:

http://www.pgatour.c...-v-20080428.pdf

Also, regarding high caps and driver length per the above, I'd argue that most high caps would be best served by first learning to keep the ball in play off the tee. Then course management. Distance after that.



17

#78 North Butte

North Butte

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,970 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
  • Handicap:25
GolfWRX Likes : 3048

Posted 30 August 2017 - 10:04 AM

I'm not talking about ShotLink-like data about ones own game. That is trivially easy to obtain (Arccos, Game Golf, notepad and pencil).

There's no data source for how changeable these things are for a given player. Even if I knew precisely with absolute certainty that over my last 100 rounds my proximity to the hole from 125-150 yards was 4.39265 strokes worse than Dustin Johnson's proximity to the hole from 125-150 yards that only quantifies the potential benefit of improving my short-iron game.

But we have no data for what would required to improve my short iron game by 1.00000 strokes gained in the future. Maybe that would take a handful of lessons and twice a week trips to the driving range for three months. Or maybe it would take every waking hour from now until the heat death of the universe.

Same for driving or bunker play or chipping or long irons. An improvement of 1.0 strokes in Strokes Gained-Putting is either easier or harder for me to obtain than an improvement of 1.0 strokes in 1.0 strokes in Strokes Gained-Off The Tee. Either way the benefit is 1.0 strokes per round but what is the cost? Nobody knows, we just have speculation and conventional wisdom.

"Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile."

Edited by North Butte, 30 August 2017 - 10:06 AM.

A sensible man will realize that the eyes may be confused in two ways---by a change from light to darkness or from darkness to light; and he will recognize the same thing happens to the soul.

--Plato

18

#79 bph7

bph7

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,688 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 135739
  • Joined: 08/08/2011
  • Location:DFW
GolfWRX Likes : 2643

Posted 30 August 2017 - 10:12 AM

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 10:04 AM, said:

I'm not talking about ShotLink-like data about ones own game. That is trivially easy to obtain (Arccos, Game Golf, notepad and pencil).

There's no data source for how changeable these things are for a given player. Even if I knew precisely with absolute certainty that over my last 100 rounds my proximity to the hole from 125-150 yards was 4.39265 strokes worse than Dustin Johnson's proximity to the hole from 125-150 yards that only quantifies the potential benefit of improving my short-iron game.

But we have no data for what would required to improve my short iron game by 1.00000 strokes gained in the future. Maybe that would take a handful of lessons and twice a week trips to the driving range for three months. Or maybe it would take every waking hour from now until the heat death of the universe.

Same for driving or bunker play or chipping or long irons. An improvement of 1.0 strokes in Strokes Gained-Putting is either easier or harder for me to obtain than an improvement of 1.0 strokes in 1.0 strokes in Strokes Gained-Off The Tee. Either way the benefit is 1.0 strokes per round but what is the cost? Nobody knows, we just have speculation and conventional wisdom.

"Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile."

We also don't know if an asteroid is going to hit us tomorrow and wipe humanity off the map. Broadies hypothesis seems to be that the DIFFERENCE in strokes gained off the tee between an am and tour player is greater than the DIFFERENCE between strokes gained putting between am and your player. Therefore, there are more strokes to gain by improving driving and also possibly some lower hanging fruit by improving driving since most ams are considerably worse at that compared to pros than putting. Will this be the case with everyone?  No. But, make the case that putting will be easier to gain more strokes back given the data. It's tough to do.

19

#80 North Butte

North Butte

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,970 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
  • Handicap:25
GolfWRX Likes : 3048

Posted 30 August 2017 - 10:14 AM

Yes, the implications seem clear enough.

But then again, before ShotLink came along the implications seemed clear that putting mattered more than driving.

Clarity is one thing. Clarity backed up by data is often something else entirely.

A sensible man will realize that the eyes may be confused in two ways---by a change from light to darkness or from darkness to light; and he will recognize the same thing happens to the soul.

--Plato

Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

20

#81 therock21

therock21

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 400430
  • Joined: 10/22/2015
  • Location:Wyoming
  • Ebay ID:jaredc45
GolfWRX Likes : 1

Posted 30 August 2017 - 10:18 AM

View PostMr. Herbert, on 27 August 2017 - 08:34 AM, said:

Well, your one hole that may or may not be the exception to Broadie's rule is certainly enough for me to discount all of his research.


21

#82 therock21

therock21

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 400430
  • Joined: 10/22/2015
  • Location:Wyoming
  • Ebay ID:jaredc45
GolfWRX Likes : 1

Posted 30 August 2017 - 10:20 AM

Hahaha

22

#83 Gamble Gamble

Gamble Gamble

    Good Luck!

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 2,150 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 198076
  • Joined: 08/14/2012
  • Location:Steve's Prince of Steaks
GolfWRX Likes : 1703

Posted 30 August 2017 - 11:09 AM

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 10:14 AM, said:

Yes, the implications seem clear enough.

But then again, before ShotLink came along the implications seemed clear that putting mattered more than driving.

Clarity is one thing. Clarity backed up by data is often something else entirely.

To strongman your point:

You are saying that Broadie has crafted a model to determine where a golfer is losing strokes.  If his strokes are:
  • Driving  -3.4 strokes
  • Approach  -2.5 strokes
  • Chipping  -2 strokes
  • Putting -2 strokes
Are you are saying despite losing 3.4 strokes on driving he may be better suited to practice chipping because he may be able to shave a stroke off of chipping easier than a stroke off of driving?

If that is the case, your point is valid but it is a separate, excellent point which is TANGENTIAL to what Broadie is talking about.  

Broadie is showing you where you are losing strokes so that you can define your leaks and then plug them.  How quick you plug them is a separate issue.  This could also fall under the "exception to the rule" aspect that many people have already brought up.  Some people may be able to plug a putting leak quicker than a tee ball leak but if you are losing 4 shots on the tee ball and 1 on putting on average you are probably going to see more of a game change from fixing the tee ball.

Broadie's work is not a panacea for all ills in someones golf game.  It is a method for diagnosing your current play so that you know where you are losing shots or gaining shots.  If you want to maximize your ability to fix these issues you should consult a good professional who can create a plan to fix the weak spots in your game.

Edited by Gamble Gamble, 30 August 2017 - 11:09 AM.

Ping G400 9* Diamana 70 X
Ping Rapture 13* Tour AD-MT 7S
Cobra Baffler 18* Matrix Red Tie Stiff
Ping G25 3 Hybrid 20* Tour AD-UT 85S
Taylormade M1 4i-AW Modus 120S (hs)
Callaway MD2 54* Raw KBS Wedge
Callaway PM 60* RawKBS Wedge

Ping Cadence Ketsch Heavy
Taylormade Tour Preferred X


23

#84 North Butte

North Butte

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,970 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
  • Handicap:25
GolfWRX Likes : 3048

Posted 30 August 2017 - 11:12 AM

It's not tangential, it's the next step. I have no interest in invalidating his work (in fact I am overjoyed we're having this conversation instead of futile attempts to parse meaning into GIR and Putts Per Round) but now that the how much it matters has had some light shone on it, I'd love to see some genius come up with a way to answer the necessary next question.

But it's not an exception to the rule. It's a question that at least in theory admits an analytical, numeric answer. How much more important (in SG terms) does something have to be in order to offset being more intractable as a target of improvement?

If my 125-150 yard proximity is worth 2.6 strokes and my driving is worth 2.5 strokes yet the driving is significantly easier to address, wouldn't I do the easier one first? Or is 0.1 strokes more importance the only factor?

And if that difference isn't 0.1 strokes, what number would you put on it? 0.5? 1.0? 15?

It is most certainly a quantifiable tradeoff, we just don't yet have the data or methodology to quantify it.

Edited by North Butte, 30 August 2017 - 11:15 AM.

A sensible man will realize that the eyes may be confused in two ways---by a change from light to darkness or from darkness to light; and he will recognize the same thing happens to the soul.

--Plato

24

#85 Gamble Gamble

Gamble Gamble

    Good Luck!

  • ClubWRX Charter Members
  • 2,150 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 198076
  • Joined: 08/14/2012
  • Location:Steve's Prince of Steaks
GolfWRX Likes : 1703

Posted 30 August 2017 - 11:42 AM

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 11:12 AM, said:

It's not tangential, it's the next step. I have no interest in invalidating his work (in fact I am overjoyed we're having this conversation instead of futile attempts to parse meaning into GIR and Putts Per Round) but now that the how much it matters has had some light shone on it, I'd love to see some genius come up with a way to answer the necessary next question.

But it's not an exception to the rule. It's a question that at least in theory admits an analytical, numeric answer. How much more important (in SG terms) does something have to be in order to offset being more intractable as a target of improvement?

If my 125-150 yard proximity is worth 2.6 strokes and my driving is worth 2.5 strokes yet the driving is significantly easier to address, wouldn't I do the easier one first? Or is 0.1 strokes more importance the only factor?

And if that difference isn't 0.1 strokes, what number would you put on it? 0.5? 1.0? 15?

It is most certainly a quantifiable tradeoff, we just don't yet have the data or methodology to quantify it.

It is tangential because the scope of Broadie's work was not to help you analyze what part you can fix fastest, it is to show you where you are losing/gaining the most strokes. The time it takes to fix an aspect of your game would be very difficult to track under our current technologies.  

I do think the idea of what section of your game can show the quickest improvement is a fascinating topic too.  At the beginning of the season (didnt get Arccos until late June) i probably lost the majority of my strokes from errant left tee shots and poor approaches yet i think i gained the quickest from cleaning up my 50 yard in game, since it was a setup issue that was easily corrected.

Edited by Gamble Gamble, 30 August 2017 - 11:48 AM.

Ping G400 9* Diamana 70 X
Ping Rapture 13* Tour AD-MT 7S
Cobra Baffler 18* Matrix Red Tie Stiff
Ping G25 3 Hybrid 20* Tour AD-UT 85S
Taylormade M1 4i-AW Modus 120S (hs)
Callaway MD2 54* Raw KBS Wedge
Callaway PM 60* RawKBS Wedge

Ping Cadence Ketsch Heavy
Taylormade Tour Preferred X


25

#86 North Butte

North Butte

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,970 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
  • Handicap:25
GolfWRX Likes : 3048

Posted 30 August 2017 - 11:46 AM

Yes, I understand that completely.

Not sure if I'm failing to be clear or if you're failing to take my point.

I APPLAUD MARK BROADIE'S WORK AND NOW i WISH THAT SOMEONE, WHETHER BROADIE OR OTHERWISE, WOULD ANSWER THE NEXT, EQUALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.
A sensible man will realize that the eyes may be confused in two ways---by a change from light to darkness or from darkness to light; and he will recognize the same thing happens to the soul.

--Plato

26

#87 bph7

bph7

    Hall of Fame

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,688 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 135739
  • Joined: 08/08/2011
  • Location:DFW
GolfWRX Likes : 2643

Posted 30 August 2017 - 11:52 AM

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Yes, I understand that completely.

Not sure if I'm failing to be clear or if you're failing to take my point.

I APPLAUD MARK BROADIE'S WORK AND NOW i WISH THAT SOMEONE, WHETHER BROADIE OR OTHERWISE, WOULD ANSWER THE NEXT, EQUALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

You are clear to me, and I agree that answering these next questions would be extremely valuable.

27

#88 North Butte

North Butte

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,970 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 424472
  • Joined: 05/09/2016
  • Handicap:25
GolfWRX Likes : 3048

Posted 30 August 2017 - 11:58 AM

Just spitballing here but maybe there would be some way of leveraging a social media-connected version of Arccos or Game Golf with some other app/method for golfers to keep a sort of diary of any legitimate, long-term game improvement process they're undertaking. Kind of like a runner might do to use a Fitbit to both track her runs and to combine with another of tracking workouts or nutrition.

Anything like that will be a self-selected sample subject to all sorts of generalizability caveats but it would be a start...
A sensible man will realize that the eyes may be confused in two ways---by a change from light to darkness or from darkness to light; and he will recognize the same thing happens to the soul.

--Plato

28

#89 jasonfish11

jasonfish11

    Member

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 396358
  • Joined: 09/17/2015
  • Location:Virginia Beach
  • Handicap:10
GolfWRX Likes : 28

Posted 30 August 2017 - 12:21 PM

View Postbph7, on 30 August 2017 - 11:52 AM, said:

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Yes, I understand that completely.

Not sure if I'm failing to be clear or if you're failing to take my point.

I APPLAUD MARK BROADIE'S WORK AND NOW i WISH THAT SOMEONE, WHETHER BROADIE OR OTHERWISE, WOULD ANSWER THE NEXT, EQUALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

You are clear to me, and I agree that answering these next questions would be extremely valuable.

I think the problem is the answer is different for each person.  There are so many variables you can't reasonably answer the question of "how much time does shaving 1 stroke off your long game take?"

Just off the top of my head here are some variables that would affect this answer between different people.
How long have you been playing golf?
What is your general athletic aptitude?
Do you have a swing coach?
Do you video your swing?
How are you practicing?

I'm sure if I put more than 2 minutes of thought into it I could rattle off another dozen variables that would affect the difference in the length of time for player A and B to shave 1 stroke off their long game.

I mean even 2 identical players with different goals could result in different amounts of time to shave 1 stroke off their game.
Think if player A and B are both 10 handicaps, and player A wants to get to scratch, but player B wants to get to a single digit cap.  Lets even go as far as saying both of them only want to improve starting with their long game.  
They could go to the exact same coach, but the coach might give them different things to work on given they have different goals.  Maybe for player B there is a small simple swing change that could result in saving him 1-2 strokes a round.  But player A needs a swing redesign to help him get to his goal of scratch.  So he actually starts off by getting worse and maybe it takes him 6-12 months to get down to a 9 handicap due to the magnitude of what he is changing compared to player B.  

I'm not saying you can't prove this out, I just think finding a way to set variables to 0 would be extremely difficult.

29

#90 matthewb

matthewb

    Major Winner

  • Advanced Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,594 posts
  •  
  • Member #: 34838
  • Joined: 07/17/2007
GolfWRX Likes : 402

Posted 30 August 2017 - 12:27 PM

View PostNorth Butte, on 30 August 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

Yes, I understand that completely.

Not sure if I'm failing to be clear or if you're failing to take my point.

I APPLAUD MARK BROADIE'S WORK AND NOW i WISH THAT SOMEONE, WHETHER BROADIE OR OTHERWISE, WOULD ANSWER THE NEXT, EQUALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

Although it will depend on the individual golfer, general advice will be that improving from 100 yards in is fastest but improving from 100 yards out has twice the potential for improvement compared to the short game.

Table 9.17 in ESC shows a consistent 2:1 pattern of awful long game shots versus awful short game shots. The table goes from PGA tour pro to 75 golfer and then in five shot increments to 110 golfer.


Remove This Advertisement Viewing As Guest

    GolfWRX Forums

    Advertisement


Wanna get rid of this ugly yellow box? And remove other annoying "stuff" in between posts? Create a FREE GolfWRX account here.

30



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

GolfWRX Sponsors