Reasonable Driver Club Speed Formula to Aim for?

[saevel25]

Mine ended up around 117 mph, which works out to be pretty accurate. 

[tristanhilton85]

I'm going to use this formula as a reason not to go on a diet and lose the weight I probably should... As long as I stay fat I should be able to swing the club faster.

[pganapathy]

The biggest problem with this formula is weight and age.  My answer works out to 112 because I am short and heavy and the amount I am discounting for my age is too low.  This possibly works for athletic people.  Maybe time for me to go on a diet and hit the gym to get up to my predicted speed.  Even when I was younger I never got much above 105 probably or at a push 110 when everything went right and I was a lot fitter.  High 90's to low 100's was more realistic and now I am probably low to mid90's I reckon.  Must admit haven't been on a simulator in a long time so no idea what I am actually swinging

[onthehunt526]

I get 122.7 when I plug the numbers into the formula. Didn’t feel like adding my 1/2 to 6’6”.

I don’t swing nearly that. My body won’t let me. I can maybe sneak 103 or so, but honestly I hit it 250-260 yards.

[boogielicious]

I got 109, which I’ve hit with speed training but it’s about 10-15 more than I record with normal driver swings. I would suggest @p1n9183 create a spreadsheet we could all input information and see if we could come up with better factors. The more data we gather, the more accurate the factors could be.

[GolfLug]

35 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I got 109, which I’ve hit with speed training but it’s about 10-15 more than I record with normal driver swings. I would suggest @p1n9183 create a spreadsheet we could all input information and see if we could come up with better factors. The more data we gather, the more accurate the factors could be.

A base constant of 99.6 mph is too high to begin with. My avg CHS is 93-94 mph. So unless remaining calculation comes up with a negative value it can't come even close for me. 

BTW, @p1n9183, cool exercise man.

[ChetlovesMer]

9 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

A base constant of 99.6 mph is too high to begin with. My avg CHS is 93-94 mph. So unless remaining calculation comes up with a negative value it can't come even close for me. 

I think the OP mentioned at the beginning that he was searching for a math formula to calculate your potential speed, not your actual speed. 
So, this formula would help you set a goal speed to strive for. 

So logically the formula for potential should give a higher number than your current average. 

[boogielicious]

14 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I think the OP mentioned at the beginning that he was searching for a math formula to calculate your potential speed, not your actual speed. 
So, this formula would help you set a goal speed to strive for. 

So logically the formula for potential should give a higher number than your current average. 

This is why I think we all should provide data to help create the model. We all have different body types and ages.

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

This is why I think we all should provide data to help create the model. We all have different body types and ages.

But… it’s your current speed, not your potential.

[GolfLug]

50 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

I think the OP mentioned at the beginning that he was searching for a math formula to calculate your potential speed, not your actual speed. 
So, this formula would help you set a goal speed to strive for. 

So logically the formula for potential should give a higher number than your current average. 

Fair point. Fair point.

I guess I have horribly inefficient mechanics or have molasses running through my veins.. or.... both. Either way I'm leaving a lot on the table. I've always wondered why am I already not on 'Tour'. This splains it hehe.

[SEMI_Duffer]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

This is why I think we all should provide data to help create the model. We all have different body types and ages.

The problem is, as I mentioned, earlier: Without that data including body fat percentage the weight metric is pretty useless.  But, without the weight metric, it's also not going to be particularly meaningful.

E.g.: Re-doing my numbers with my old weight, before I started controlling my diet and working out again:

99.6 + 76*0.13 + 195*0.08 - 72*0.24 = 108

That formula shows a 1 MPH faster potential CHS because I weighed ten pounds more.  But, that was when I was at 23% body fat.  Lean body mass then: 150 lbs.  Lean body mass now: 155 lbs.  So I have five pounds more muscle than I had then, but, I'd have less CHS?

The importance of body fat in the calculation becomes even more apparent if you consider the fact that, when I was at peak fitness I weighed about 195 lbs. and had 15% body fat.  165 lbs. of lean body mass: 15 lbs. more than I have now.

I also know that, back in 2020, when I was still pretty fit, I was averaging 135-140 yards with my 7i--wonky swing and all.  By last year, with a better, more consistent swing, I'd lost about 20 yards.  Difference?  I'm guessing most likely because I hadn't worked-out for two years.

What the additional data might help with is deriving a sub-expression to more-accurately account for age.  But, my guess would be that data already exists.  (I'd be surprised if TrackMan didn't have it.  They seem to have stats on everything else.)

 

[GolfLug]

23 minutes ago, SEMI_Duffer said:

The problem is, as I mentioned, earlier: Without that data including body fat percentage the weight metric is pretty useless.  But, without the weight metric, it's also not going to be particularly meaningful.

E.g.: Re-doing my numbers with my old weight, before I started controlling my diet and working out again:

99.6 + 76*0.13 + 195*0.08 - 72*0.24 = 108

That formula shows a 1 MPH faster potential CHS because I weighed ten pounds more.  But, that was when I was at 23% body fat.  Lean body mass then: 150 lbs.  Lean body mass now: 155 lbs.  So I have five pounds more muscle than I had then, but, I'd have less CHS?

The importance of body fat in the calculation becomes even more apparent if you consider the fact that, when I was at peak fitness I weighed about 195 lbs. and had 15% body fat.  165 lbs. of lean body mass: 15 lbs. more than I have now.

I also know that, back in 2020, when I was still pretty fit, I was averaging 135-140 yards with my 7i--wonky swing and all.  By last year, with a better, more consistent swing, I'd lost about 20 yards.  Difference?  I'm guessing most likely because I hadn't worked-out for two years.

What the additional data might help with is deriving a sub-expression to more-accurately account for age.  But, my guess would be that data already exists.  (I'd be surprised if TrackMan didn't have it.  They seem to have stats on everything else.)

 

I think some dynamic abilities like vertical leap height and how far out can one skip a rock have to be factors. A static factor like weight can be very misleading for obvious reasons. Maybe adding a BMI qualifier might make it a cleaner factor.   

[SEMI_Duffer]

16 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

Maybe adding a BMI qualifier might make it a cleaner factor.   

Nope.  E.g.: My BMI was higher when I was at 195 lbs. and 15% BF than it is now, but, I had much more muscle mass.

You might be able to SWAG it with some kind of height vs. waist size calculation, though.

Edited June 24, 2023 by SEMI_Duffer

[saevel25]

BMI is not a good proxy for athletes since the muscle mass can give them a high BMI. Body fat % is probably a better indicator. Ideally you want lean body mass. 

[tourproto]

The math is close for me.

73" tall, 220lbs, 60 years old

Theoretical max SS of 112.3mph. 

My regular driver SS is 103-105. I can crank it up to 109-110mph but directional control gets worse (which is why I don't swing that hard).

I hit 70% of fairways when swinging at 103-105. Not a fan of bomb and gouge. I really prefer hitting my 2nd shot from the fairway and not from behind a tree, even if it is 20 yards further back, 

[klineka]

9 hours ago, tourproto said:

I hit 70% of fairways when swinging at 103-105. Not a fan of bomb and gouge.

"Bomb and Gouge" results in lower scores over the long term though. Driving distance is a much bigger separator between various levels of handicap than fairways hit.

 

9 hours ago, tourproto said:

I really prefer hitting my 2nd shot from the fairway and not from behind a tree, even if it is 20 yards further back, 

But you wouldn't hit every single tee shot behind a tree if you hit it 20yds further though... What about the times where you'd hit the fairway with the faster swing and be 20yds further ahead?

This is a conversation for a different topic but I strongly encourage you to be more open minded and learn about what the facts and data say around distance vs accuracy and the benefits that speed can provide.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

"Bomb and Gouge" results in lower scores over the long term though. Driving distance is a much bigger separator between various levels of handicap than fairways hit.

 

But you wouldn't hit every single tee shot behind a tree if you hit it 20yds further though... What about the times where you'd hit the fairway with the faster swing and be 20yds further ahead?

This is a conversation for a different topic but I strongly encourage you to be more open minded and learn about what the facts and data say around distance vs accuracy and the benefits that speed can provide.

Not saying @tourproto is one, but you’ll most likely get no mileage outta this. Even though it’s widely known and proven that what you said is 100% factual, when you mention math/statistics….you lose people. They think their ‘personal experience’ always places them as an outlier.

[billchao]

2 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

They think their ‘personal experience’ always places them as an outlier.

My personal experience makes me an outlier. So does the data, unfortunately 😃