or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Reading Room › "Every Shot Counts" by Mark Broadie
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Every Shot Counts" by Mark Broadie

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 

Discuss "Every Shot Counts" by Mark Broadie here.

post #2 of 28
I just read his article in the Golf Magazine, some interesting thoughts on how to score lower.
post #3 of 28
I'll buy it when it is released next month, looks good.
post #4 of 28

Pre-ordered the Kindle edition. Looking forward to it.

post #5 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
 

Pre-ordered the Kindle edition. Looking forward to it.

 

So did I.

 

We're going to use a few of the stats from this book in LSW, of course, but so far my notes aren't very long. Lots of things we already knew, lots of focus on proving how putting doesn't matter very much, and so on.

post #6 of 28
Thread Starter 

The first time I've heard this (page 76): a larger hole favors the poorer putters by allowing them to close the gap on the better putters.

 

I've heard it - and probably repeated it - as the opposite in the past. I've always heard that the better putters don't miss by much, so they make a few more putts, while a larger hole doesn't help the poor putters much at all as they miss badly.

 

Though Broadie's simulation was done with an eight-inch hole (I think), and the previous experiments were conducted with a six-inch hole, or a five-inch hole, IIRC.

 

It would make sense that there could be a hole size at which the equation flip, but it also makes sense that the equation never flips and always favors the poorer putters with an increase in hole size (a ten-foot hole would let everyone in the world one-putt everything, after all).

post #7 of 28
Off topic but for just for a second I thought this was a Lance Armstrong book. It's tough choosing titles though I'd guess most people won't make the association.
post #8 of 28

I pre-ordered this on iBooks.  It looks like a fun read.  I can't really hack golf instructional books but, this and LSW interest me.  

post #9 of 28
After reading the research paper in the other thread, I'll be very interested to read the book when it comes out.
post #10 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post

After reading the research paper in the other thread, I'll be very interested to read the book when it comes out.

 

FWIW, 100 pages in, and I've yet to find anything that you can't really get in the various published articles. It's been somewhat disappointing in that sense. There's more depth, and particularly for $20 or so, it's still worth it, but I'm hoping the last 150 or so pages contain new information.

post #11 of 28
Thread Starter 

Broadie believes that hitting putts more firmly "potentially increases the chance of sinking the putt" because of the reduction in break.

 

We know this to be false from a physics standpoint: http://thesandtrap.com/t/46450/putting-capture-speed/18#post_631295 .

post #12 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Broadie believes that hitting putts more firmly "potentially increases the chance of sinking the putt" because of the reduction in break.

We know this to be false from a physics standpoint: http://thesandtrap.com/t/46450/putting-capture-speed/18#post_631295 .

With all due respect (I think you know more about the golf swing than 99.9% of instructors I've ever met), i don't think the thread you are referring to proves anything. You used a bunch of mathematical equations to calculate the perfect speed and posted your results. Some members took it at face value, and some questioned it... Pelz rolled thousands of putts on greens from a "perfect putter" and published his results. Do I trust a pen on paper hypothesis, or a true test in the real world? I tend to lean toward to real world test...

Also, if you use Broadie's analysis to support most of his ideas, but throw away his thoughts on putting, it comes across as cherry picking. You think he does an excellent job of doing research when it supports your theory, but say, as a matter of fact, that he's wrong when it doesn't agree with your thoughts.

I know you won't like this post, but I had to point it out...
post #13 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r View Post

With all due respect (I think you know more about the golf swing than 99.9% of instructors I've ever met), i don't think the thread you are referring to proves anything. You used a bunch of mathematical equations to calculate the perfect speed and posted your results. Some members took it at face value, and some questioned it... Pelz rolled thousands of putts on greens from a "perfect putter" and published his results. Do I trust a pen on paper hypothesis, or a true test in the real world? I tend to lean toward to real world test...

 

Pelz conducted his research a long time ago. Greens were slower, the lumpy donut effect was more prevalent, and a few other things.

 

My "math" was based on both the physical and real-world testing done by Mark Sweeney, who arguably knows more about green reading than Dave Pelz.

 

My math can be simplified to this: a putt moving slower at the hole has a greater chance of falling in. The hole is effectively "larger" the slower a ball is going. So long as you can move the "wobble zone" (about six inches) beyond the hole, there's no reason to hit putts much harder than about six inches to a foot past the hole - it makes the hole larger.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r View Post

Also, if you use Broadie's analysis to support most of his ideas, but throw away his thoughts on putting, it comes across as cherry picking. You think he does an excellent job of doing research when it supports your theory, but say, as a matter of fact, that he's wrong when it doesn't agree with your thoughts.

 

That's not true. You can choose to believe me or not - I don't really care - but I don't "cherry pick." When information seems legitimate to me, and lines up with my own information, I like it. When I question the data, because it doesn't seem to line up with my experiences, I don't.

 

Hitting putts harder shrinks the effective hole size.

 

So imagine that you're aiming at two points: Point A and Point B. Both points are literally just points - infinitely small. I tell you that Point A has +/- 0.25". Point B has +/- 1.5". Which point would you rather putt to? Who cares if it's right lip or two inches outside the right lip?

 
Hitting putts harder shrinks the effective hole size.
 
So I disagree with what Broadie says on hitting putts firmer.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r View Post

I know you won't like this post, but I had to point it out...

 

It's not about that. People are fallible. I've found flaws in the thinking of lots of people. Broadie is a reasonably good golfer, but I think in this instance, he's wrong. He doesn't go into it in more detail - he seems to think that "reduction in break" makes up for the reduction in hole size. That doesn't seem to have any factual basis. The opposite seems more true, and I'm basing that opinion on the work done by myself, by Mark Sweeney, by understanding how old Pelz's study is, and more.

 

Happy to explain myself. Let me know if you need more.

 

P.S. The specific post to which I linked speaks to the "Point A" and "Point B" stuff and ignores all of the math. It speaks simply to playing putts to a point farther outside the hole but with a wider margin of error versus the same sized point with a smaller margin of error.

post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Pelz conducted his research a long time ago. Greens were slower, the lumpy donut effect was more prevalent, and a few other things.

My "math" was based on both the physical and real-world testing done by Mark Sweeney, who arguably knows more about green reading than Dave Pelz.

My math can be simplified to this: a putt moving slower at the hole has a greater chance of falling in. The hole is effectively "larger" the slower a ball is going. So long as you can move the "wobble zone" (about six inches) beyond the hole, there's no reason to hit putts much harder than about six inches to a foot past the hole - it makes the hole larger.


That's not true. You can choose to believe me or not - I don't really care - but I don't "cherry pick." When information seems legitimate to me, and lines up with my own information, I like it. When I question the data, because it doesn't seem to line up with my experiences, I don't.

Hitting putts harder shrinks the effective hole size.

So imagine that you're aiming at two points: Point A and Point B. Both points are literally just points - infinitely small. I tell you that Point A has +/- 0.25". Point B has +/- 1.5". Which point would you rather putt to? Who cares if it's right lip or two inches outside the right lip?
 
Hitting putts harder shrinks the effective hole size.
 
So I disagree with what Broadie says on hitting putts firmer.
 


It's not about that. People are fallible. I've found flaws in the thinking of lots of people. Broadie is a reasonably good golfer, but I think in this instance, he's wrong. He doesn't go into it in more detail - he seems to think that "reduction in break" makes up for the reduction in hole size. That doesn't seem to have any factual basis. The opposite seems more true, and I'm basing that opinion on the work done by myself, by Mark Sweeney, by understanding how old Pelz's study is, and more.

Happy to explain myself. Let me know if you need more.


P.S. The specific post to which I linked speaks to the "Point A" and "Point B" stuff and ignores all of the math. It speaks simply to playing putts to a point farther outside the hole but with a wider margin of error versus the same sized point with a smaller margin of error.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any reference to Mark Sweeney's research in the other thread. I'll look for that online.

If your numbers are more accurate in today's world, I wonder if Pelz was right, but it doesn't translate perfectly to today's faster, more manicured greens?
post #15 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r View Post

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any reference to Mark Sweeney's research in the other thread. I'll look for that online.

 

You might not find a bunch. AimPoint Certified instructors have paid a decent amount of money to get access to Mark and his knowledge. We try to respect his wishes too by not publishing his info unless we know we're allowed to.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r View Post

If your numbers are more accurate in today's world, I wonder if Pelz was right, but it doesn't translate perfectly to today's faster, more manicured greens?

 

Pelz's testing was done years ago on slower greens, yes, and it involved him rolling balls towards a hole using a rolling device. Anyway, that's more relevant in the other thread than this one.

post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Anyway, that's more relevant in the other thread than this one.

Agree. Thanks for the responses.
post #17 of 28
This is something I believe you miss when you are talking about hitting putts firmer, you forget human error!!!! If you try and die a ball hole high with all your putts, 50ft 25ft even 2 feet doesn't matter. Because of human error you will leave a certain percentage short. Those putts do not ever go in. I am a great putter and I believe it is because I take less break on some putts and hit my putts firmer than most everyone else. Yes it will cause more lip outs in theory, but I know from experience an aggressive putter who almost always gets the ball rolling at a solid pace past the hole simply holes more putts. Human error is not something you factor in your math when you calculate the "proper putting speed" for people with the "yips" it's obvi better for them to just die the ball hole high to avoid 3 putts.
post #18 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by souzatheory View Post

This is something I believe you miss when you are talking about hitting putts firmer, you forget human error!!!! If you try and die a ball hole high with all your putts, 50ft 25ft even 2 feet doesn't matter. Because of human error you will leave a certain percentage short. Those putts do not ever go in.

 

Neither do the putts hit with speed to go three feet past that miss the exact middle of the hole by more than 3/4 of an inch. :-)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by souzatheory View Post

I am a great putter and I believe it is because I take less break on some putts and hit my putts firmer than most everyone else. Yes it will cause more lip outs in theory, but I know from experience an aggressive putter who almost always gets the ball rolling at a solid pace past the hole simply holes more putts. Human error is not something you factor in your math when you calculate the "proper putting speed" for people with the "yips" it's obvi better for them to just die the ball hole high to avoid 3 putts.

 

I can make - and have before - a very strong case that hitting putts firmer gives you less margin of error. The hole becomes smaller. EVERY hole, while you're only talking about the few putts you leave short. How often do you leave a four-foot putt short? Not too often… So I'd rather putt to a larger hole and risk those once-a-year times I leave a short putt short of the hole.

 

But as I said before, "capture speed" has a thread all of its own. Let's move this talk there.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Reading Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Practice Range › Reading Room › "Every Shot Counts" by Mark Broadie