Handicap versus Clubhead Speed/Driving Distance

[iacas]

Originally Posted by lion82

Distance is ruining golf. I've got 95mph speed with my driver and have basically been blown off by a few instructors because they think I must be a hack because I hit it short. I finished 2nd in my state mid am match play a couple of years ago.

Haney's graph is total bs.

Do you understand how a graph like that works, and how your own performance can also be true?

I disagree that the graph is BS.

[lion82]

I read the graph as there is a high correlation between high speed and low handicap which I agree with to a point. Club golfers shoot in the 80's and 90's because they miss lots of fairways and greens. I'd like to see a graph that charted face to path consistency to handicap.

[WWBDD]

Originally Posted by iacas

Do you understand how a graph like that works, and how your own performance can also be true?

I disagree that the graph is BS.

Whether or not you agree with the correlation being proposed, the graph shows a very skewed population, and is thus BS.

As stated above, 24 golfers between 18 and +5 handicap is hardly a random sample and the x axis appears to have been manipulated to allow for a straight line.

If Haney was using ths data in a business or academic setting, he'd be laughed out of the room.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by WWBDD

Whether or not you agree with the correlation being proposed, the graph shows a very skewed population, and is thus BS.

As stated above, 24 golfers between 18 and +5 handicap is hardly a random sample and the x axis appears to have been manipulated to allow for a straight line.

If Haney was using ths data in a business or academic setting, he'd be laughed out of the room.

Yeah, I was one of those incorrectly assuming it was a random sample of 24 golfers, but it's a lot more likely that it's an average of several golfers at each index.  And, in further examination, the x-axis isn't skewed at all.  +5 to 18 is guess how many???  24.  There are 24 equally spaced dots, one each representing an average clubhead speed for the sample (we DO NOT know how many are in each of these sub samples, however) at each index point.

Further, we were bagging on Haney because the info came from his tweet, but it actually came from Nicole Aniston , errr, Trackman. ;)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by lion82

I read the graph as there is a high correlation between high speed and low handicap which I agree with to a point.

A high correlation, yes. An absolute correlation, no.

I think you're getting cause and effect backwards, or trying to say there is cause and effect here. I think the true "causes" for both of the charted things are:

Causes for higher handicaps:

1) Poor mechanics causing poor shots

2) Poor decisionmaking

3) Lack of distance

Causes for slower swing speed:

1) Poor mechanics causing poor kinematic sequencing

2) Old or young golfers

Lots of overlap. That's all the chart shows.

Originally Posted by WWBDD

Whether or not you agree with the correlation being proposed, the graph shows a very skewed population, and is thus BS.

How's the population "skewed"? I'll agree it's very small in size. How is it "skewed"?

Originally Posted by WWBDD

As stated above, 24 golfers between 18 and +5 handicap is hardly a random sample and the x axis appears to have been manipulated to allow for a straight line.

Did I miss the part where he claimed that it wasn't 24 golfers spread across that range? And do you know that the X axis was manipulated and that even if it was, a simple curve couldn't fit the line with a high R value?

Edit: and if what Golfingdad is saying is true, well, then you've really got less room to complain. :)

Originally Posted by WWBDD

If Haney was using ths data in a business or academic setting, he'd be laughed out of the room.

Is it even Haney's data? And did he claim that this was proof, or did he simply share the chart as a point of discussion?

I've taught a lot of people and seen a lot of golfers. Lower handicappers tend to have higher swing speeds, both because they're of a better age and have better mechanics. Additionally, higher swing speeds are a skill. If you could build two identical golfers except one swung 15 MPH faster, the second one is going to have a better handicap index.

[Yukari]

I haven't read the entire post, but just looking at the graph (and as other have pointed out), there are only 24 data points, which renders the entire conclusion at best inconclusive.  Intuitively, you would expect at least some correlation between the two as people with higher swing speed generally have a better swing mechanics.

But if you look at some older golfers who have very low swing speed but consistently shoot in the 70's because it's always fairways and greens for them, you know they selected data to fit the conclusion.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

There are 24 equally spaced dots, one each representing an average clubhead speed for the sample at each index point.

but it actually came from Trackman.

Originally Posted by iacas

... and if what Golfingdad is saying is true, well, then you've really got less room to complain. :)

Sorry, I should be more careful.  Let me be clearer.  The x-axis says +5 one one end and 18 on the other, and there are absolutely 24 equally spaced dots.  Those are all facts.  I am hypothesizing (fancy way of saying assuming ;)) from that information that each dot represents a whole number handicap index ... +5, +4, +3 ... 16,17,18.

And I'm also taking the word of a previous poster (the first page somewhere, not sure who), who said the graph came from Trackman.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Yukari

But if you look at some older golfers who have very low swing speed but consistently shoot in the 70's because it's always fairways and greens for them, you know they selected data to fit the conclusion.

You don't know that.

A lot of those senior golfers play from shorter tees (where the course rating is 67.3 or something), so even if they shoot 75 they're still a 7 or an 8.

And there really aren't that many seniors that shoot in the 70s as often as you seem to think. I'm inclined to believe they're a small percentage. Outliers.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Yukari

But if you look at some older golfers who have very low swing speed but consistently shoot in the 70's because it's always fairways and greens for them, you know they selected data to fit the conclusion.

Its an average.  You get all kinds of players who consistently shoot in the 70's.  Some with high SS's and some with low.  The graph simply says that the average SS of a +5 is higher than the average SS of an 18.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Sorry, I should be more careful.  Let me be clearer.  The x-axis says +5 one one end and 18 on the other, and there are absolutely 24 equally spaced dots.  Those are all facts.  I am hypothesizing (fancy way of saying assuming ;)) from that information that each dot represents a whole number handicap index ... +5, +4, +3 ... 16,17,18.

And I'm also taking the word of a previous poster (the first page somewhere, not sure who), who said the graph came from Trackman.

I think you're probably right about each data point being the average of golfers at that HC, rather than a single player.  Its highly unlikely that he found 24 individuals with HC's spaced out so exact, and every one of them fit the graph.

And the image says trackman on the bottom.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by dsc123

Its an average.  You get all kinds of players who consistently shoot in the 70's.  Some with high SS's and some with low.  The graph simply says that the average SS of a +5 is higher than the average SS of an 18.

To be fair, I don't think it's an average. You wouldn't see that odd jump from 10 to 11 if it was an average of more than about 5 or 10 people. The whole thing would tend to be smoother.

Originally Posted by dsc123

I think you're probably right about each data point being the average of golfers at that HC, rather than a single player.  Its highly unlikely that he found 24 individuals with HC's spaced out so exact, and every one of them fit the graph.

I disagree. If you give lessons long enough you can cover those handicaps before you make it to "H" in your student list.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by iacas

To be fair, I don't think it's an average. You wouldn't see that odd jump from 10 to 11 if it was an average of more than about 5 or 10 people. The whole thing would tend to be smoother.

That's something I would have no knowledge of, but it makes sense.  Do you think its probably an average of 5 or 10 people per data point then?  If each data point is a single player, then you wouldn't expect it to fit the line as closely as it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I disagree. If you give lessons long enough you can cover those handicaps before you make it to "H" in your student list.

That would be some real cherry picking and if that's all it is, then yeah, this chart would be completely meaningless.  That wouldn't mean the relationship doesn't exist, but just that the chart proves nothing.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dsc123

And the image says trackman on the bottom.

Yes, but Hank Haney might have a Trackman.  I may have jumped the gun and taken the word of a previous poster that it came from Trackman.  Who knows.

I have some Trackman info on my swing and the printout says "Trackman" on it, but it didn't come from them, it came from my fitter. :)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by dsc123

That would be some real cherry picking and if that's all it is, then yeah, this chart would be completely meaningless.  That wouldn't mean the relationship doesn't exist, but just that the chart proves nothing.

Not necessarily. Remember, the freakish guy that hits it 300 but can't break 90 is a huge outlier.

I don't think it's an average of even 5 or 10 people (maybe 5, but almost definitely not 10) because you wouldn't see the weird arbitrary jumps that you see.

I don't think the value is 0. It might be the first person alphabetically with that handicap index. Who knows?

I bet a real chart with real averages would have an even higher R value.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by iacas

A high correlation, yes. An absolute correlation, no.

I think you're getting cause and effect backwards, or trying to say there is cause and effect here. I think the true "causes" for both of the charted things are:

Causes for higher handicaps:

1) Poor mechanics causing poor shots

2) Poor decisionmaking

3) Lack of distance

Causes for slower swing speed:

1) Poor mechanics causing poor kinematic sequencing

2) Old or young golfers

Good post, very much agree.  There will always be some outliers but a majority of the time your better players will tend to be your "longer" players.

[johnny_14424]

Originally Posted by iacas

A high correlation, yes. An absolute correlation, no.

I think you're getting cause and effect backwards, or trying to say there is cause and effect here. I think the true "causes" for both of the charted things are:

Causes for higher handicaps:

1) Poor mechanics causing poor shots

2) Poor decisionmaking

3) Lack of distance

Causes for slower swing speed:

1) Poor mechanics causing poor kinematic sequencing

2) Old or young golfers

Lots of overlap. That's all the chart shows.

How's the population "skewed"? I'll agree it's very small in size. How is it "skewed"?

Did I miss the part where he claimed that it wasn't 24 golfers spread across that range? And do you know that the X axis was manipulated and that even if it was, a simple curve couldn't fit the line with a high R value?

Edit: and if what Golfingdad is saying is true, well, then you've really got less room to complain. :)

Is it even Haney's data? And did he claim that this was proof, or did he simply share the chart as a point of discussion?

I've taught a lot of people and seen a lot of golfers. Lower handicappers tend to have higher swing speeds, both because they're of a better age and have better mechanics. Additionally, higher swing speeds are a skill. If you could build two identical golfers except one swung 15 MPH faster, the second one is going to have a better handicap index.

Does coming over the top slow down swing speed vs swinging more inside the target line?

[saevel25]

Quote:

Does coming over the top slow down swing speed vs swinging more inside the target line?

Depends on the swing,

Major over the top move, with casting the club, loosing wrist angle early, is a major power loss

But i played golf for years with a slight over the top move, playing a slight pull cut to a pull shot, less casting of the club, and i didn't see much power loss when i got more an inside swing. I gained power, because it is a more powerful move to harness the leverage, but it depends on the the type of move the player makes.

[turbosdad]

speed as in baseball is disputed as not the silver bullet, of course not........all other things being equal, I would rather swing at 110 than 90.  You have the potential to hit the ball further at 110 than at 90, and distance equals accuracy........