"Numbers" Obsession Generation

[MadMex]

Hello!

I am a rookie here, but I am a member of other sites, what I have seen more and more is people who seem to have become "numbers" obsessed!

This is what I mean, I read a thread on another site were a member was asking how to lower his spin rate 200 RPMS because according to "data" he needed to be 200 rpms lower. So as you may have guessed already, the OP was flooded with advise. I asked one simple question, "How are you hitting in the course" his response was " I have only hit on the driving range"

So now my question, have we become numbers obsessed? I can see using a monitor to get a good starting point, but what counts is how the equipment works under realistic conditions! 

I was fitted in '85 with a ruler, a chart, 3 clubs and dozens of balls hit, then off to the course and back to make any tweaks. 

 

[PlaidJacket]

18 hours ago, MadMex said:

what I have seen more and more is people who seem to have become "numbers" obsessed!

I totally agree and have said such before in one form or another. This golf forum is all about data. That's what they do here - meaning the guys that own/run it. They analyze every aspect of a club and ball and all the various data points they are able to extract from them. And it's a lot of data too. It's not my thing per se' but it is for a lot of golfers. Personally I don't care much what the data has to say. I mostly rely on my experience and my equipment performance out on the golf course. I use what I see with my eyes and what I feel with my hands. Owning a decent set of golf clubs fit for each individual is important in my book. But when the rubber hits the road the data isn't hitting shots for me. I am. So, my advice is to get some decent fitting equipment and go learn how to score. And BTW.... lower is better. More fun too if.... you'll forget about all the data and record/stats keeping. (been there done that) Free your mind. You'll play better.

[cnosil]

In my opinion,  the numbers are important for fitting and improving but I also believe that people are too obsessed with chasing numbers.  As you and Plaid have said,  you eventually have to go to the course and actually play the game.   Looking for 200 RPMs is being too obsessed;  looking for 1000 might not be.  

The various data capture devices have provided a wealth of information that has changed what people thought happened in the swing.  Ball flight laws have changed,   pressure shifts and using the ground has become more prevalent in instruction,  we see how various clubs and shafts impact launch and flight conditions.  

The thing about golf is that we don't always hit the "optimal" shot;  we hit the ball lower,  higher, shape shots,  etc.   

One thing I have learned in my life is that we can do things the old fashioned way (in this case watch the ball flight and feel what is happening),  but being able to see the numbers eliminates all questions and makes information gathering faster and easier. 

[aerospace_ray]

I am 100% in support of quality data and proper applicability of that data ("numbers").

But I sort of think many are too concerned with chasing numbers based on what they see a pro on tv achieving, etc.  And many a high hncper is obsessed with chasing stats vs playing the game first.

I remember decades ago when I learned to play the game and watching the scratch players of that day. No numbers, no technology, but they knew how to score and had creativity with their shot making.

Modern game, courses, clubs and everything is different -- I get it. But people were shooting par and lower before tech.

Very much appreciate MGS and its data driven posture. I do feel fortunate to receive modern technology  fittings (using numbers to dial in shafts/clubs/club specs) but like anything it can be misused.

[chisag]

... Imo for the vast majority of players, numbers should only be used to diagnose a problem or find the right equipment if they have never been fit properly. For a select few that are very consistent, numbers can maximize their performance but not always. Perfect example is a mini tour pro that has won twice that I played with in Orlando. He had a Callaway driver that had been fine tuned for maximum distance with ideal spin, trajectory and ball speed. It was to replace his Titleist driver that launched a little higher and with more spin than was "ideal". He carried the Cally around 300 and carried the Titleist around 285. I played with him for a practice round and he was hitting both off every tee. He hit some absolute bombs with the Cally but hit 2 drives OB. He hit every fairway with the Titleist, usually a few yards shorter than his Cally but always in play. He took the Cally out of play for the back 9 and told me "I could not live with hitting a ball OB off the tee and certainly could not live with 2 OB. Every drive with the Titleist was in the fairway and a few of the Cally's were in the rough. I will gladly give up 15-20 yds to hit my next shot from the fairway."

... Obviously 99% of us cannot identify with his 'problem' of only carrying the ball 285, but for many of us, spin is our friend. We may be a little shorter but we are in play. I wonder how many golf games numbers would have been destroyed with players like Trevino, Floyd and Palmer changing their swing or equipment to chase numbers instead of hitting golf shots with what they had. Players like Tiger/Rory/Dustin are just so rare and can take numbers and make the kind of small changes that maximize their potential. I know I have hit shafts in my driver that absolutely maximize my distance, but I need to be at my most aggressive and I play best under control with a smoother swing. Standing in one spot with a launch monitor and pounding an Even Flow Black works better for me than an Even Flow Blue. But on the course, the EF Blue is straighter and easier to load/unload and I find more fairways and do not risk losing my tempo. Most of us want to find the fairway with acceptable length, hit the green with acceptable stopping power and make a few putts. We don't need numbers to accomplish that.

[heavygolffeels]

Really depends on how good you are how serious of a player you are. Bryson is trying to dial his driver spin down to a number. A consistent 200 RPMs high or low is no good. New ball, new loft, new shaft until its right to maximize distance.

Now a player like myself, my driver is about 200 rpm too high to maximize distance. I know this from multiple sessions on Trackman, but I hit my driver so well and have so much control. I made the mistake of purchasing a different combo that really did give me 15 more yards on solid hits, but mishits were absolutely dreadful. Shots that just dove into the ground 100 yards out. Way too low spin when my strike point was not consistent. So I am not looking for that sub 2000 spin. Does not work for my game. So yes. the numbers are a guideline for maximizing  distance, but ultimately the player has to maximize the club for his game. 

[HardcoreLooper]

I'd love to see how consistent this guy who's chasing 200 RPM is.  That's not me.  

Knowing Strokes Gained (or something like it) for the different facets of your game can be a huge help in telling you where you need to practice.  Arccos and ShotScope both give you this info fairly easily.  It's worth it to me.

And knowing how Strokes Gained Approach can definitely help you plot your way around the golf course.  From 160 yards away in the fairway, pros average 2.98 strokes to hole out.  To get to a similar number of strokes from the rough, you have to be 80 yards away from the green.

I need to be 80 yards closer to the green if I'm going to be in the rough just to make the same score.  Maybe I'll hit driver on a somewhat tight hole if I know I can catch a downslope and really make it worth my while.  Even if I'm cutting my chances of hitting the fairway in half, I'm still coming out ahead, if I'm not worried about sand/trees/water/OB.  But if all I can get is an extra 20 yards hitting driver, and it comes with a much higher chance of being in the rough, then it's not really worth it.

The same goes for picking a new driver.  10 more yards is nice, as long as your accuracy doesn't drop appreciably.  On the flip side, you could get better without hitting the ball any longer, just hitting it your usual distance but more fairways.

[NM01]

12 hours ago, scooterhd2 said:

Really depends on how good you are how serious of a player you are. Bryson is trying to dial his driver spin down to a number. A consistent 200 RPMs high or low is no good. New ball, new loft, new shaft until its right to maximize distance.

Now a player like myself, my driver is about 200 rpm too high to maximize distance. I know this from multiple sessions on Trackman, but I hit my driver so well and have so much control. I made the mistake of purchasing a different combo that really did give me 15 more yards on solid hits, but mishits were absolutely dreadful. Shots that just dove into the ground 100 yards out. Way too low spin when my strike point was not consistent. So I am not looking for that sub 2000 spin. Does not work for my game. So yes. the numbers are a guideline for maximizing  distance, but ultimately the player has to maximize the club for his game. 

From what I have read, heard about since getting serious into golf 200 rpm is A number that’s barely noticeable, it’s like most people can’t feel the difference in the weight of a nickel in shafts. 

I’m curious what you have seen on launch monitors in carry and total that 200 rpm changes on two exact strikes. 

 

[cnosil]

I’m curious what you have seen on launch monitors in carry and total that 200 rpm changes on two exact strikes. 
 

I am wondering how often a player produces 2 exact strikes where every parameter is the same? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000?

All players have a dispersion pattern and for a driver let’s say that is 50 yards wide, the ball that lands on the left edge of that pattern vs the one on the right side probably had 200 RPMs if difference.

[NM01]

1 minute ago, cnosil said:

 

I am wondering how often a player produces 2 exact strikes where every parameter is the same? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000?

All players have a dispersion pattern and for a driver let’s say that is 50 yards wide, the ball that lands on the left edge of that pattern vs the one on the right side probably had 200 RPMs if difference.

 

That’s very true too. Watching the Taylormade videos with their staff testing clubs they don’t make the fact same contact twice in a row and there’s probably even some variation in some of the flight characteristics from swing to swing. While Matt from TXG isn’t PGA pro level he’s. Pretty consistent and he rarely hits two of the exact same shots in their videos

[cnosil]

That’s very true too. Watching the Taylormade videos with their staff testing clubs they don’t make the fact same contact twice in a row and there’s probably even some variation in some of the flight characteristics from swing to swing. While Matt from TXG isn’t PGA pro level he’s. Pretty consistent and he rarely hits two of the exact same shots in their videos

Also, when looking at optimal numbers charts they give ranges not exact numbers. I’d love to see a series of actual data from a swing robot, I bet they even have a bigger standard deviation than 200 rpms.

[heavygolffeels]

Not sure why we are talking about one hit. If you are a professional golfer, you have a somewhat repeatable swing. Yes, they are going to be deviations. Absolutely, of course. But you might known your average swing speed is 115, you average ball speed is 170. You average angle of attack is +1 degree. 

Now, there is an optimized spin and launch with these numbers that you want to control with equipment to maximize distance. Of course, some golfers introduce other priorities. Maximizing distance might not be necessary if they want a little more spin for control, or if they prefer a lower apex. They may be willing to give up yards to meet other parameters, but even still there is a desired spin window. 

200 RPMS is not a lot. On a single strike, it is not making a huge difference. But when you are accounting more deviations at the ideal window you want to be in it can be significant, especially in the lower ranges. For example, a player want 2000 RPMS of spin to maximize carry distance. With his current equipment his deviation, or window is 1700-2300. Now you introduce a new shaft that lowers the spin by 200 RPMS but maintains other launch and speed characteristics. Now his deviations drop to 1500-2100. On high strikes in the face, the player is now noticing the ball knuckling and is hard to control, sometimes duck hooking and almost turning into the ground. If the player had a more positive angle of attack the equipment might work, but at this point he is reaching back for his old shaft.    

 

[cnosil]

Not sure why we are talking about one hit. If you are a professional golfer, you have a somewhat repeatable swing. Yes, they are going to be deviations. Absolutely, of course. But you might known your average swing speed is 115, you average ball speed is 170. You average angle of attack is +1 degree. 
Now, there is an optimized spin and launch with these numbers that you want to control with equipment to maximize distance. Of course, some golfers introduce other priorities. Maximizing distance might not be necessary if they want a little more spin for control, or if they prefer a lower apex. They may be willing to give up yards to meet other parameters, but even still there is a desired spin window. 
200 RPMS is not a lot. On a single strike, it is not making a huge difference. But when you are accounting more deviations at the ideal window you want to be in it can be significant, especially in the lower ranges. For example, a player want 2000 RPMS of spin to maximize carry distance. With his current equipment his deviation, or window is 1700-2300. Now you introduce a new shaft that lowers the spin by 200 RPMS but maintains other launch and speed characteristics. Now his deviations drop to 1500-2100. On high strikes in the face, the player is now noticing the ball knuckling and is hard to control, sometimes duck hooking and almost turning into the ground. If the player had a more positive angle of attack the equipment might work, but at this point he is reaching back for his old shaft.    
 

I think this hits the point of the original post on the head. People become obsessed over numbers and lowering average by 200. The player in your original example is within “ideal” range so no reason to tinker.

[Popeye64]

From what I have read, heard about since getting serious into golf 200 rpm is A number that’s barely noticeable, it’s like most people can’t feel the difference in the weight of a nickel in shafts. 

I’m curious what you have seen on launch monitors in carry and total that 200 rpm changes on two exact strikes. 
 

Earlier this season I was doing a driver head comparison between Taylormade SIM head and a Maltby KE4 TC. They had identical shafts in length and CPM. Superlite55 Xcaliber shafts.
On three separate days I collected data. The KE4 spun on average 2-300 rpms less. But nearly all other data was identical and only separated by a mph here or a yard there. The KE4 technically beat out the SIM but it was splitting hairs.
As the testing went on i found the SIM to be much more consistent once I got it outside.
But from what i saw the variations of spin from shot to shot creates marginal changes. I believe a 500 rpm change would be needed to really impact Joe Average player.
Then when you become more comfortable with any said club you find out what works and what doesn't. So then if you went back and collected data again the numbers would change quite a bit. The SIM has been my testing head for the past three months. As I became more familiar with it I was able to improve all aspects of data.
And we all know how our swing can change from week to week if not day to day.
500+/- would be needed for a true impact I believe.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[NM01]

57 minutes ago, Popeye64 said:

Earlier this season I was doing a driver head comparison between Taylormade SIM head and a Maltby KE4 TC. They had identical shafts in length and CPM. Superlite55 Xcaliber shafts.
On three separate days I collected data. The KE4 spun on average 2-300 rpms less. But nearly all other data was identical and only separated by a mph here or a yard there. The KE4 technically beat out the SIM but it was splitting hairs.
As the testing went on i found the SIM to be much more consistent once I got it outside.
But from what i saw the variations of spin from shot to shot creates marginal changes. I believe a 500 rpm change would be needed to really impact Joe Average player.
Then when you become more comfortable with any said club you find out what works and what doesn't. So then if you went back and collected data again the numbers would change quite a bit. The SIM has been my testing head for the past three months. As I became more familiar with it I was able to improve all aspects of data.
And we all know how our swing can change from week to week if not day to day.
500+/- would be needed for a true impact I believe.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
 

The 500 rpm is the number that I was under the impression would be where the differences would come in. I know Andrew Rice has done a lot of testing on contact location and with different flight characteristics from aoa, face and path to see the differences. It’s been awhile since I’ve looked at any of his social media posts but iirc he talked about what values are needed to see a change