Jump to content
TESTERS WANTED! ×

Lies, Damned Lies, and Golf Statistics


markb

Recommended Posts

That's the typical default, but it can be changed to produce different results. 

 

I first discovered this by accident when I went in to my local store to use their GC2 to compare two drivers I had in hand and the worker said, "It's all set up, just use the green club for your first, and the yellow for the second."  I did and I got radically different results for SS and total distance, but pretty close results with ball speed, launch angles and carry distance.   Odd, I thought, so I switched the order, 2nd club to green, 1st to yellow.  The results stayed the same for the "better" green club and "worse" yellow club.   Smelling a rat, when they weren't looking I poked into the sub-menus. 

 

They'd set up the smash factors and roll out defaults differently for the two clubs, probably in a sales effort to favor one club over another because they know that rube customers tend to focus more on SS and TD.

 

Maybe I should change the header of this thread to "Lies, Damned Lies, Golf Statistics, and Salesmanship".

 

 I have never seen that happen to me when using GC2, thats pretty shady

Driver:   :callaway-small: Epic 10.5 set to 9.5 w/ Tour AD-DI 44.5

FW:   :cobra-small: F6 baffler set at 16º

Hybrid:  NONE
Irons:   :taylormade-small:  3i 2014 TP CB  4-PW 2011 TP MC w/ TT S400

Wedges:   :nike-small: 52º :nike-small: 56º  :edel-golf-1: 60 º w/ KBS C-Taper XS Soft-stepped

Putter:   :ping-small: Sigma G Tyne 34 inches Gold dot

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I have never seen that happen to me when using GC2, thats pretty shady

 

Bear in mind that I'm talking about the computer sim connected to the GC2 monitor.   The sim is where all the presets and monkey business can happen.   Not to say it will happen, but you have to check those presets every time.   The LM itself is just going to spit out raw readings of spin, ball speed, launch angle etc.

 

I once had an internet golfer on another forum "prove" to me how good he was with his newly-released driver by posting a GC2 sim screen shot of his last 6 drives.   Phenomenal numbers, which proved to be too phenomenal.   I was testing the same driver at the time and had a SS very close to his.   Somehow he was getting massive carry and roll-out outputs that I couldn't match when his ball speed, launch angle and spin numbers were close to what mine were.   How did he do it?   He turned up the sim presets to Himalayan monastery altitude and bowling alley fairway settings for max carry and roll out, then he threw out all swings that weren't ideal.  

 

Was he a shill for the manufacturer?   Probably.

bag - SunMountain Synch with Ogio Synergy X4 cart
driver - :callaway-small: Optiforce 440, Paderson Kevlar Green stiff 46.5"
fwoods - :taylormade-small: Jetspeed, 3HL regular
irons - :taylormade-small:  Speedblades 3-8, 85g stiff steel, 2 up
wedges - :edilon-small: Scor 40, 45, 50, 54, 58
putter - :ping-small: Ketsch 35" slight arc, SuperStroke 2.0 mid-slim
ball - :titelist-small: ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I once had an internet golfer on another forum "prove" to me how good he was with his newly-released driver by posting a GC2 sim screen shot of his last 6 drives.   Phenomenal numbers, which proved to be too phenomenal.   I was testing the same driver at the time and had a SS very close to his.   Somehow he was getting massive carry and roll-out outputs that I couldn't match when his ball speed, launch angle and spin numbers were close to what mine were.   How did he do it?   He turned up the sim presets to Himalayan monastery altitude and bowling alley fairway settings for max carry and roll out, then he threw out all swings that weren't ideal.  

 

 

 

 

Big hitter the Lama.....   Long.

Driver - Ping G430 Max 9° | Ventus Blue TR 
Hybrid - :srixon-small: ZX 16° & 18° | GD Tour IZ S

2 Iron - :srixon-small: ZU65 17° | AeroTech SteelFiber 110icw S

Irons -  :srixon-small: ZX7 MKII  4-Pw | TTDGTI S400, std length  1° flat
Wedges - :cleveland-small: RTX 6 Tour Rack 50° 54° 58° | TTDGTI S400, std length 1° flat

Putter -  L.A.B. Golf Link.1 | LA Golf P135 shaft | Garsen Quad Tour grip
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big hitter the Lama.....   Long.

 

Gunga-lagunga, baby.   The episode did give me "total consciousness" about the tricks of launch monitor jockeys.

bag - SunMountain Synch with Ogio Synergy X4 cart
driver - :callaway-small: Optiforce 440, Paderson Kevlar Green stiff 46.5"
fwoods - :taylormade-small: Jetspeed, 3HL regular
irons - :taylormade-small:  Speedblades 3-8, 85g stiff steel, 2 up
wedges - :edilon-small: Scor 40, 45, 50, 54, 58
putter - :ping-small: Ketsch 35" slight arc, SuperStroke 2.0 mid-slim
ball - :titelist-small: ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gunga-lagunga, baby.   The episode did give me "total consciousness" about the tricks of launch monitor jockeys.

 

At least you've got THAT goin for ya....  Which is nice.

Driver - Ping G430 Max 9° | Ventus Blue TR 
Hybrid - :srixon-small: ZX 16° & 18° | GD Tour IZ S

2 Iron - :srixon-small: ZU65 17° | AeroTech SteelFiber 110icw S

Irons -  :srixon-small: ZX7 MKII  4-Pw | TTDGTI S400, std length  1° flat
Wedges - :cleveland-small: RTX 6 Tour Rack 50° 54° 58° | TTDGTI S400, std length 1° flat

Putter -  L.A.B. Golf Link.1 | LA Golf P135 shaft | Garsen Quad Tour grip
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even club manufacturers agree robot data doesn't cross over to real people swinging the club for review purposes. They definitely use them in their R&D, very helpful there. But when it's time to see what a club does for real, they want third party, real golfers doing it. A robot has no feel, can't tell you what to expect if you hit a shot toward the toe or give you dispersion patterns based on how people make contact. A robot doesn't release the club the same as a human. There are countless dynamics to a person's swing that a robot can't get feedback on.

 

Sure having a pool of 100 testers over 50 rounds with each club would be great. That's not realistic obviously, and doing it with a robot instead would be pointless because the results wouldn't translate to you when you swung the same club.

 

The problem is those "real" golfers aren't the same as me, or any other consumer. The whole deal is I am not convinced that human "real" golfers offer any more value than testing with a robot.

 

A least with a robot you can control the variables like swing speed, angle of attack, face angle etc. You can even vary these factors and graph the results.

 

But human testers are unreliable, they get tired, they have their personal preference, they have that "what feels good for them" factor, which is totally subjective.

 

So using statistics and subsequent reviews from human testers offers very little value.

Now in my bag:

TM SLDR 10.5 Deg with Matrix Ozik 6Q3 S flex

TM VSteel 15 deg 3 wood

Cleveland Launcher Hybrid 18 deg Diamana Red Board Stiff

Titleist ZB Forged Iron 3-PW DG S200 Steel Shaft

Cleveland CG15 46, 52, 56, 60 Wedges

Scotty Cameron California Del Mar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately it does come down to just you and the clubs in your bag.

 

That's one reason why I do relatively little launch monitor testing and a lot of driving range and real course testing.   What does an LM do?   It gives you numbers that may help you to quantify and approximate a real shot when searching for the ideal.   Well, real shots help you see real shots even better.  

 

I'm only concerned with one thing when I test.   Is the new test club better than the one it may replace?   I don't care so much about spin or angles or shot height if the new club delivers something superior to the old club.

 

I know what the old ones do, so I use reviews and word of mouth and net chatter to sniff out potential candidates for a test.   Numbers and ads and pro tour usage and hype mean nothing at this stage, only what I see with my own eyes.

bag - SunMountain Synch with Ogio Synergy X4 cart
driver - :callaway-small: Optiforce 440, Paderson Kevlar Green stiff 46.5"
fwoods - :taylormade-small: Jetspeed, 3HL regular
irons - :taylormade-small:  Speedblades 3-8, 85g stiff steel, 2 up
wedges - :edilon-small: Scor 40, 45, 50, 54, 58
putter - :ping-small: Ketsch 35" slight arc, SuperStroke 2.0 mid-slim
ball - :titelist-small: ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately it does come down to just you and the clubs in your bag.

 

That's one reason why I do relatively little launch monitor testing and a lot of driving range and real course testing.   What does an LM do?   It gives you numbers that may help you to quantify and approximate a real shot when searching for the ideal.   Well, real shots help you see real shots even better.  

 

I'm only concerned with one thing when I test.   Is the new test club better than the one it may replace?   I don't care so much about spin or angles or shot height if the new club delivers something superior to the old club.

 

I know what the old ones do, so I use reviews and word of mouth and net chatter to sniff out potential candidates for a test.   Numbers and ads and pro tour usage and hype mean nothing at this stage, only what I see with my own eyes.

I would agree, I will use a LM. But to confirm what my eye balls are seeing. It's one of many tools. I don't care much about pro usage because what they use must be different from what I use even if it's the same brand/ model. My swing speed with the driver is mid 90's theirs 115 plus. Not the same approach to the game or equipment needed.

Taylor Made Stealth 2 10.5 Diamana S plus 60  Aldila  R flex   - 42.25 inches 

SMT 4 wood bassara R flex, four wood head, 3 wood shaft

Ping G410 7, 9 wood  Alta 65 R flex

Srixon ZX5 MK II  5-GW - UST recoil Dart 65 R flex

India 52,56 (60 pending)  UST recoil 75's R flex  

Evon roll ER 5 32 inches

It's our offseason so auditioning candidates - looking for that right mix of low spin long, more spin around the greens - TBD   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I just saw another fine example of a mis-leading golf statistic in a video comparing two irons.   The video focused on the relative differences between two different shafts in the same head and it compared the launch angles, spins, AoA,  ballspeed, carry, and l to r dispersion using the Trackman.    All the numbers made sense, but each column had to have a summary conclusion, or an average, in order to make sense of how that club performed and enable the user to make a sensible choice, correct?

 

I won't bore you with all the details, suffice it to say that the two shafts produced almost identical results in most categories for the 5 shot test window displayed on screen -- except with the left to right dispersion category.   One of the clubs had numbers like 19l, 18r, 11l, 9r,  4r  and the other shaft had numbers like 11l, 7l, 9l, 2l, 3l.     Since the bottom of the column merely totaled the AVERAGE of the inputs above it, the first club which has big sprays both left and right (producing a very large diameter dispersion circle) came out with very low mathematical average since the big lefts cancelled out the big rights.   The second club, with a much tighter circle that was shifted a little left, has a much better dispersion but an average that looks worse to the untrained eye.   If you look at just the averages, and not the circle, you'd think that no. 1 was a better shaft, when no.2 is much better

 

I think Trackman has the ability to display the grouping circles I'm talking about, I've seen it before, but not on the columnular chart I saw in the video.  Fortunately, the demonstrator also caught this anomaly.

bag - SunMountain Synch with Ogio Synergy X4 cart
driver - :callaway-small: Optiforce 440, Paderson Kevlar Green stiff 46.5"
fwoods - :taylormade-small: Jetspeed, 3HL regular
irons - :taylormade-small:  Speedblades 3-8, 85g stiff steel, 2 up
wedges - :edilon-small: Scor 40, 45, 50, 54, 58
putter - :ping-small: Ketsch 35" slight arc, SuperStroke 2.0 mid-slim
ball - :titelist-small: ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To properly evaluate a dataset, control limits need to be set; in this case there is a systematic error for shaft #2 with a small random error while shaft #1 only has a large random error.  Based on typical shaft results, control limits of 2 sigma can be established that would clearly show when a shaft is unacceptable.  The bias left for #2 can be corrected, but I would want to know why it's there and what can be done to eliminate it.  If nothing, then I'd still be looking for another shaft.

We don’t stop playing the game because we get old; we get old because we stop playing the game.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about aiming a little bit more to the right with the shaft that goes left consistently?   I'll take that over the garden hose spraying shaft 1.   Shaft 2's consistent lefts were produced by the consistent baby draw seen with this shaft.   Certainly something most of us could live with.   It was a 6 iron.

bag - SunMountain Synch with Ogio Synergy X4 cart
driver - :callaway-small: Optiforce 440, Paderson Kevlar Green stiff 46.5"
fwoods - :taylormade-small: Jetspeed, 3HL regular
irons - :taylormade-small:  Speedblades 3-8, 85g stiff steel, 2 up
wedges - :edilon-small: Scor 40, 45, 50, 54, 58
putter - :ping-small: Ketsch 35" slight arc, SuperStroke 2.0 mid-slim
ball - :titelist-small: ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were the shots hit by a person or a robot?

 

I would certainly want no part of shaft 1. As for shaft 2 so much depends upon other factors. Was it the first time with that shaft/head combo? Does the shaft encourage a flip for the player swinging it or is it a matter of a small adjustment?

 

As a rule I don't like equipment that causes me to have to change my alignment or grip. That seems like the perfect recipe for bad habits to start to creep in. The whole point to fitting is to give me equipment that fits my swing.

Taylor Made Stealth 2 10.5 Diamana S plus 60  Aldila  R flex   - 42.25 inches 

SMT 4 wood bassara R flex, four wood head, 3 wood shaft

Ping G410 7, 9 wood  Alta 65 R flex

Srixon ZX5 MK II  5-GW - UST recoil Dart 65 R flex

India 52,56 (60 pending)  UST recoil 75's R flex  

Evon roll ER 5 32 inches

It's our offseason so auditioning candidates - looking for that right mix of low spin long, more spin around the greens - TBD   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a person on a trackman.   I think we're missing the point of my example.  

 

The question is not whether either of these two small datasets is "correct" or even "good enough".  And of course both datasets are statistically too small to use, as all golf sample sizes usually are (see my original post).   The point of my example was just to compare two datasets , one of which appeared to be better through a misapplication of statistics, when it was actually significantly worse.  

 

In my example the Trackman chart displayed the average of the dataset compared to an artificial, "ideal" aimpoint because it was displaying averages for all the other columns of data (AoA, ball speed, launch angle, spin, etc.)  For those other columns, averages can give meaningful information, but for a category concerning itself with dispersion, an average is the wrong tool to use.   You hunters know what I mean about dispersion.  It's the choke of a shotgun.   It's why you don't take a gun choked for pheasants on a dove hunt.

 

In this case, the significant information is derived by measuring the Standard deviation (greek letter sigma), or the dispersion off of the average.   In my example, the first shaft has an average of .2 yards right, but its standard deviation from that average is a whopping 13.43 yards off the mean.   The second dataset has an average of 6.4 left, but its standard deviation is only 3.44 yards off the mean.  The first club is a wide-spraying dove gun, but the second is a fairly tight pheasant gun that seems to shoot a little left.

bag - SunMountain Synch with Ogio Synergy X4 cart
driver - :callaway-small: Optiforce 440, Paderson Kevlar Green stiff 46.5"
fwoods - :taylormade-small: Jetspeed, 3HL regular
irons - :taylormade-small:  Speedblades 3-8, 85g stiff steel, 2 up
wedges - :edilon-small: Scor 40, 45, 50, 54, 58
putter - :ping-small: Ketsch 35" slight arc, SuperStroke 2.0 mid-slim
ball - :titelist-small: ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got it and it's a point well taken. However any data without interpretation is meaningless I would say. That could easily be the point here, data for data's sake isn't the point. Lower golf scores are the point. It doesn't matter if the data shows that I consistently head drier 295 dead straight unless that number contributes to lower scores.

 

Trackman is a great tool, it is not the end all be all, but when used in conjunction with other pieces of information it can contribute to lowering scores.

Taylor Made Stealth 2 10.5 Diamana S plus 60  Aldila  R flex   - 42.25 inches 

SMT 4 wood bassara R flex, four wood head, 3 wood shaft

Ping G410 7, 9 wood  Alta 65 R flex

Srixon ZX5 MK II  5-GW - UST recoil Dart 65 R flex

India 52,56 (60 pending)  UST recoil 75's R flex  

Evon roll ER 5 32 inches

It's our offseason so auditioning candidates - looking for that right mix of low spin long, more spin around the greens - TBD   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my example the Trackman chart displayed the average of the dataset compared to an artificial, "ideal" aimpoint because it was displaying averages for all the other columns of data (AoA, ball speed, launch angle, spin, etc.)  For those other columns, averages can give meaningful information, but for a category concerning itself with dispersion, an average is the wrong tool to use.   You hunters know what I mean about dispersion.  It's the choke of a shotgun.   It's why you don't take a gun choked for pheasants on a dove hunt.

That's the point I was making, and it's the same for the other columns of data too. Yes, averages for those other data can be meaningful, but only if you know what an acceptable sigma should be for each one. You can have a wide dispersion on each one of those swing numbers. To properly evaluate a dataset, the operator needs to assign an acceptable variance. How to come up with that variance? Usually by examining the results from a large population.

 

I don't know how a Trackman operates, but it should have an average with a + or - number, or uncertainty. The user should set the uncertainty that is acceptable based on analysis of lots of data.

We don’t stop playing the game because we get old; we get old because we stop playing the game.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the point I was making, and it's the same for the other columns of data too. Yes, averages for those other data can be meaningful, but only if you know what an acceptable sigma should be for each one. You can have a wide dispersion on each one of those swing numbers. To properly evaluate a dataset, the operator needs to assign an acceptable variance. How to come up with that variance? Usually by examining the results from a large population.

 

I don't know how a Trackman operates, but it should have an average with a + or - number, or uncertainty. The user should set the uncertainty that is acceptable based on analysis of lots of data.

Your point is well taken for dispersion on the other columns as well.   For example, a club that produced a WIDE dispersion of launch angles or ball speeds should be very suspect.   I think that Trackman and the other monitors don't provide this information up front because it's just too much Stat's for most folks to digest.   Most golfers can barely fathom averages

 

The value of dispersion is really very important in all our golf stat considerations.   That's why I get irked when monitor operators arbitrarily "throw out" the bad swings and think that 5 swings is enough to know something.   That's obscene!   You need to count the bad swings because they contribute to the standard deviation and you need a big sample size.  You are looking for a club that gives you fewer bad swings, thus a tighter dispersion.   Dispersion on drivers is just as important because dispersion is a key indicator of forgiveness.

 

Can we talk Scor's for a second here, since we're all Scor guys?   That whole dispersion thing was the KEY component of their challenge and it was something that ultimately we all agreed on, that they do seem to produce tighter dispersion.   Today I played a quick nine and shot an even par 36.   I had 8 birdie attempts between 5 and 20 feet and missed all 8.   5 were produced by these wonderful, tight Scors that I grow to love more every round and all were on the money distance-wise.   (I didn't even putt badly, just one of those days where they didn't drop.)

 

But on two par 3's I had to hit 9 irons because my Scor's only go up to PW.  On the tee, I said to my brother, "Oh great, I have to hit my fuzzy 9 iron."

 

FUZZY 9 Iron!  That's the way it feels to me now, like I'm not quite sure where it is going to go.  A bit left, a bit right, I don't really know.   If I Trackman'ed it, I don't think it would have a good SD at all.  Man, I've got to get that Scor 41 soon!  

bag - SunMountain Synch with Ogio Synergy X4 cart
driver - :callaway-small: Optiforce 440, Paderson Kevlar Green stiff 46.5"
fwoods - :taylormade-small: Jetspeed, 3HL regular
irons - :taylormade-small:  Speedblades 3-8, 85g stiff steel, 2 up
wedges - :edilon-small: Scor 40, 45, 50, 54, 58
putter - :ping-small: Ketsch 35" slight arc, SuperStroke 2.0 mid-slim
ball - :titelist-small: ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a person on a trackman.   I think we're missing the point of my example.  

 

The question is not whether either of these two small datasets is "correct" or even "good enough".  And of course both datasets are statistically too small to use, as all golf sample sizes usually are (see my original post).   The point of my example was just to compare two datasets , one of which appeared to be better through a misapplication of statistics, when it was actually significantly worse.  

 

In my example the Trackman chart displayed the average of the dataset compared to an artificial, "ideal" aimpoint because it was displaying averages for all the other columns of data (AoA, ball speed, launch angle, spin, etc.)  For those other columns, averages can give meaningful information, but for a category concerning itself with dispersion, an average is the wrong tool to use.   You hunters know what I mean about dispersion.  It's the choke of a shotgun.   It's why you don't take a gun choked for pheasants on a dove hunt.

 

In this case, the significant information is derived by measuring the Standard deviation (greek letter sigma), or the dispersion off of the average.   In my example, the first shaft has an average of .2 yards right, but its standard deviation from that average is a whopping 13.43 yards off the mean.   The second dataset has an average of 6.4 left, but its standard deviation is only 3.44 yards off the mean.  The first club is a wide-spraying dove gun, but the second is a fairly tight pheasant gun that seems to shoot a little left.

I agree. Why not just take the average yards offline, without right or left.  Let's say you hit one shot 20 yards right, and the next 10 yard left.  Your average yards offline is 15, and you can look at the raw data to see where you are missing.

Driver:  Taylormade 2017 M2 9.5 degree head played at 8 degrees.  Fujikura speeder evolution tour spec x flex shaft tipped 1/4 inch.  

 

3-Wood: 15 degree M2 tour.  Fujikura pro 73 tour spec X flex shaft.  

 

Mizuno H5 2 iron.

 

4 iron: mizuno mp h4 4 iron dynamic gold s300

 

5-pw iron: mizuno mp 54 dynamic gold s300

 

52, 56, 60 wedges: cleveland 588 rotex cavity

 

putter: 34 inch nike method 00 half circle mallet putter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Why not just take the average yards offline, without right or left.  Let's say you hit one shot 20 yards right, and the next 10 yard left.  Your average yards offline is 15, and you can look at the raw data to see where you are missing.

The whole on-line, off-line issue is another one that irks me, especially indoors.   Frankly, you don't know where you're aiming indoors or if your aimpoint corresponds to the monitors aimpoint.  If not, you'll be off everytime.   So I don't really care about where I go left and right indoors, I look for the center of the cluster of hits and figure that's where I musta been aiming.   Outdoors on a trackman, it's a little easier to know your l or r if you set the thing up at a visible target and try for the target.

bag - SunMountain Synch with Ogio Synergy X4 cart
driver - :callaway-small: Optiforce 440, Paderson Kevlar Green stiff 46.5"
fwoods - :taylormade-small: Jetspeed, 3HL regular
irons - :taylormade-small:  Speedblades 3-8, 85g stiff steel, 2 up
wedges - :edilon-small: Scor 40, 45, 50, 54, 58
putter - :ping-small: Ketsch 35" slight arc, SuperStroke 2.0 mid-slim
ball - :titelist-small: ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your point is well taken for dispersion on the other columns as well.   For example, a club that produced a WIDE dispersion of launch angles or ball speeds should be very suspect.   I think that Trackman and the other monitors don't provide this information up front because it's just too much Stat's for most folks to digest.   Most golfers can barely fathom averages

 

The value of dispersion is really very important in all our golf stat considerations.   That's why I get irked when monitor operators arbitrarily "throw out" the bad swings and think that 5 swings is enough to know something.   That's obscene!   You need to count the bad swings because they contribute to the standard deviation and you need a big sample size.  You are looking for a club that gives you fewer bad swings, thus a tighter dispersion.   Dispersion on drivers is just as important because dispersion is a key indicator of forgiveness.

 

Can we talk Scor's for a second here, since we're all Scor guys?   That whole dispersion thing was the KEY component of their challenge and it was something that ultimately we all agreed on, that they do seem to produce tighter dispersion.   Today I played a quick nine and shot an even par 36.   I had 8 birdie attempts between 5 and 20 feet and missed all 8.   5 were produced by these wonderful, tight Scors that I grow to love more every round and all were on the money distance-wise.   (I didn't even putt badly, just one of those days where they didn't drop.)

 

But on two par 3's I had to hit 9 irons because my Scor's only go up to PW.  On the tee, I said to my brother, "Oh great, I have to hit my fuzzy 9 iron."

 

FUZZY 9 Iron!  That's the way it feels to me now, like I'm not quite sure where it is going to go.  A bit left, a bit right, I don't really know.   If I Trackman'ed it, I don't think it would have a good SD at all.  Man, I've got to get that Scor 41 soon!

 

Agreed! Stats for the average Joe is meaningless. It's "Wow! I hit that far". Doesn't pay attention where it went. Probably doesn't care.

 

People that have played for awhile start looking at dispersion. They already did the "far" thing. I know I did. Lost the "far" thing long ago, so now my focus is on hitting the fairway. If I am left or right center, I wonder why I didn't hit the center. Not bragging; just how I have to hit it to compete these days.

 

YES, let's talk SCOR. Been playing the 46 & 50 for a week now. Talk about dispersion! I am all over the flagstick from 110 yards and in. The 46 is a half club longer than my i20 PW and it flies higher. I am thinking if I get the 41 it can replace my 9 iron too. I have made more birdies this week this week than usual. And I firmly believe it is because of SCOR wedges. I am now wishing I had a whole bag of irons like these wedges!

We don’t stop playing the game because we get old; we get old because we stop playing the game.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's odd for me to see clubs go where I point them and go to the precise distances that I expect.   Maybe it's just shocking because I got so used to the "fuzz" with my GI short irons before.   Now I find I'm getting picky.  

 

I lasered one front pin today 131 to the front, 135 to the pin, and 139 to the edge of the slope that fell off the Redan to the back.   So I had nothing to work with.  But I have a Scor 45 that will go 135 if struck right.  I caught it right and I didn't even follow it, I just started walking cause I knew it would go 135.   It went exactly 135 according to my GPS.   Another hole I had 121 to the front on my GPS and a "red" flag somewhat behind it.   I did not laser it.   I have a 120 Scor 50 so I figured I'd just horse it.   Nope, a slight headwind made it only go 116 and when I got to the green I saw that the flag was 10 yards deep.   I am such a stupid!  I cursed myself for not lasering cause I coulda used the 45!   I'm getting that picky on dispersion now.   The "fuzz" of "oh well, that's good enough" has disappeared.   You can't horse a Scor, but you can choke up on the next higher one.

 

However, I know I can't hit some forged blade 4, 5, and 6 irons.   I'll skull half of them and chunk the others.   I needs my fat-soled forgiving GI long irons.

bag - SunMountain Synch with Ogio Synergy X4 cart
driver - :callaway-small: Optiforce 440, Paderson Kevlar Green stiff 46.5"
fwoods - :taylormade-small: Jetspeed, 3HL regular
irons - :taylormade-small:  Speedblades 3-8, 85g stiff steel, 2 up
wedges - :edilon-small: Scor 40, 45, 50, 54, 58
putter - :ping-small: Ketsch 35" slight arc, SuperStroke 2.0 mid-slim
ball - :titelist-small: ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Returning to that fantasy stat of putts per round (ppr), I'm not even sure why anyone even uses it, including TV golf commentators.   It is worthless.   You show me a guy with low PPR, I'll show you a guy who is missing greens with his irons and chipping well.   EVERY SINGLE round I've ever had where I had like 27-29 PPR were crappy rounds where I'm scrambling to get up and down to make par.  

 

If we want to monitor our putting we should look at total distance of putts made (DPM).  And by putts made, I mean strokes taken using the putter, not shots that were struck from the shortest cut of grass.   Why should those frog hair putts that may only be 10 feet from the pin not count as putts if we want to know how the flat stick is performing?   They should count.  Anytime you pull the putter you want to know if it goes in or not.  Total Distance of putts made is not that hard to calculate roughly.  If you make a long one, just count your steps, multiply by 3, and add it to the total.   You guesstimate everything else. 

 

Yesterday I shot a 70 with 50 ft of putts and I did not think I putted well.   The DPM stat bears me out because 54 feet is only 18 x 3ft per hole.   Any monkey should be able to make 3 footers.  Upon closer scrutiny, I made 3 par saving short putts of 5 feet or less.  (Thanks to good chipping).   I made one 8 foot birdie putt.  I had two pars with fringe putts for birdie or eagle where I missed.   I also missed two easy eagle putts under 10 feet that resulted in 2-putt birdies of a foot or so.   Those were the biggest balloon busters of my day, I'm still smarting from them.   

 

Yet, my PPR on the day was a misleading 31, which is superficially pretty good.  If I delude myself by focusing on PPR I might think my putting was good, instead I need some work. 

 

Try it on your next round and tell me if you don't think that DPM is a more accurate gauge of how well you putt than PPR.

bag - SunMountain Synch with Ogio Synergy X4 cart
driver - :callaway-small: Optiforce 440, Paderson Kevlar Green stiff 46.5"
fwoods - :taylormade-small: Jetspeed, 3HL regular
irons - :taylormade-small:  Speedblades 3-8, 85g stiff steel, 2 up
wedges - :edilon-small: Scor 40, 45, 50, 54, 58
putter - :ping-small: Ketsch 35" slight arc, SuperStroke 2.0 mid-slim
ball - :titelist-small: ProV1x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree! Conversely, show me a guy with high ppr, and there is a guy who might be a decent putter but can't get close to the pin, even on chips.

 

As for golf commentators... I vaguely remember a few years ago that someone was commenting on total distance of putts made per round. I think they were talking about Tiger at one tournament where he made 140 feet total for all putts (or something like that). But I haven't heard that stat lately. Must be reserved for Tiger. :)

 

Actually for me, ppr is down because of the SCORs; getting closer to the pin.

We don’t stop playing the game because we get old; we get old because we stop playing the game.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I disagree about PPR and will continue to do so. I agree it's meaningless short term, one round, but it reveals all sorts of things when placed in context with greens hit, up and downs and score over a period of time. For me it works nicely

 

Having written that someone else's putts per round mean nothing to me without the other numbers and certainly for the pros their are better, more accurate numbers to use to measure putting, such as strokes gained.

 

Mark we are going to have to disagree on this one or at least you'll have to recognize that I know I will shoot Lowe scores if I can reduce my number of putts while maintaining my GIR numbers. :)

 

Actually I looked for this thread to bring up the Dave Pelz original of leaving the flag in or pulling it. Statistically it should never be pulled unless it's windy enough to move the stick. I've stuck by that and over a period of 20 years it's paid dividends. Still there are TV announcers and/or fellow competitors who haven't caught on.

Taylor Made Stealth 2 10.5 Diamana S plus 60  Aldila  R flex   - 42.25 inches 

SMT 4 wood bassara R flex, four wood head, 3 wood shaft

Ping G410 7, 9 wood  Alta 65 R flex

Srixon ZX5 MK II  5-GW - UST recoil Dart 65 R flex

India 52,56 (60 pending)  UST recoil 75's R flex  

Evon roll ER 5 32 inches

It's our offseason so auditioning candidates - looking for that right mix of low spin long, more spin around the greens - TBD   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I looked for this thread to bring up the Dave Pelz original of leaving the flag in or pulling it. Statistically it should never be pulled unless it's windy enough to move the stick. I've stuck by that and over a period of 20 years it's paid dividends. Still there are TV announcers and/or fellow competitors who haven't caught on.

 

If I am chipping, the flagstick is in; if I am putting from off the green (don't care how far), the flagstick is out.  

We don’t stop playing the game because we get old; we get old because we stop playing the game.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...