TST Explores GAME Golf

[b101]

2 hours ago, Shindig said:

For me, I suspect it's the longer ones (as my lack of success with Broadie's 10' drill might illustrate), but I'd like to know a bit more if possible.

As you say, you'll probably be able to guess pretty well. If you are unsure, this thread may help - definitely a favourite of mine:

https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/51757-pga-tour-putts-gainedmake-percentage-stats/

[amished]

On top of that, if you do somewhat accurately map the pin each hole (or at least get your distances to the pin for putts correct), you could go back and manually check to see the distances of putts you've missed/made in that 1-10' range.

[Shindig]

56 minutes ago, b101 said:

As you say, you'll probably be able to guess pretty well. If you are unsure, this thread may help - definitely a favourite of mine:

https://thesandtrap.com/forums/topic/51757-pga-tour-putts-gainedmake-percentage-stats/

I ought to print that chart, laminate it, and attach it to my golf bag.

I bring this up because my last 10 rounds have an average of over two strokes lost putting (compared to 10 hcp baseline).  By contrast, I gain (against the same baseline) in approach and lose less than half a shot total on off the tee + short game.

[b101]

5 minutes ago, Shindig said:

I ought to print that chart, laminate it, and attach it to my golf bag.

I bring this up because my last 10 rounds have an average of over two strokes lost putting (compared to 10 hcp baseline).  By contrast, I gain (against the same baseline) in approach and lose less than half a shot total on off the tee + short game.

I always feel it's useful to remind us how even the very best in the world don't one putt all that often and that amateurs like us expect too much from our putting. Looking at your most recent round, I would argue that the three putt on 3 is balanced out by the 2 putt on 4, but you'd hope to 2 putt either 4 or 6. The only really poor putt is your first on 17 from what it looks like. I'd say your distance control from beyond 30 feet needs work, but definitely not that dead zone that Erik mentions in LSW (15-30 feet). Would totally agree that it's long putts rather than short for you.

[Shindig]

2 minutes ago, b101 said:

I always feel it's useful to remind us how even the very best in the world don't one putt all that often and that amateurs like us expect too much from our putting. Looking at your most recent round, I would argue that the three putt on 3 is balanced out by the 2 putt on 4, but you'd hope to 2 putt either 4 or 6. The only really poor putt is your first on 17 from what it looks like. I'd say your distance control from beyond 30 feet needs work, but definitely not that dead zone that Erik mentions in LSW (15-30 feet). Would totally agree that it's long putts rather than short for you.

Interesting, and thanks.  The smart tips on that screen tells me putts under 10' can save me 1.1 strokes/round... but that's over the 10 rounds I played, and it might just be not sinking my share of medium-within-that-range.  Maybe I should go back through the last 10 and count.

[b101]

8 hours ago, Shindig said:

Interesting, and thanks.  The smart tips on that screen tells me putts under 10' can save me 1.1 strokes/round... but that's over the 10 rounds I played, and it might just be not sinking my share of medium-within-that-range.  Maybe I should go back through the last 10 and count.

The final thing I'd say just before you do that is to mainly look at the length of the first putt. For example, if you miss an eight footer, the problem may more likely be the chip or first putt that led to that.

[Shindig]

9 hours ago, b101 said:

The final thing I'd say just before you do that is to mainly look at the length of the first putt. For example, if you miss an eight footer, the problem may more likely be the chip or first putt that led to that.

First, I agree completely, and I'm not going to be upset with a chip to 8', nor with myself for missing an 8'.  I don't think this is necessarily a case of "putting is the best way to lower my score" (although between the glaring weakness and club championship coming up in two weeks I'll be practicing it disproportionately), but rather trying to keep my skills level. 

But SLP is a putting statistic, and I think the fact that I'm losing them there is telling me that I have a weakness in putting.

So I said I won't be upset missing an 8' putt, seeing as how PGA Tour pros only make half of theirs from that range (and they're all better putters than I am, even Boo Weekley).  But if I have five 8' attempts in a round and I miss all of them, that's not something I'm happy about.

For reference on just how bad this is:

 

[Missouri Swede]

1 hour ago, Shindig said:

First, I agree completely, and I'm not going to be upset with a chip to 8', nor with myself for missing an 8'.  I don't think this is necessarily a case of "putting is the best way to lower my score" (although between the glaring weakness and club championship coming up in two weeks I'll be practicing it disproportionately), but rather trying to keep my skills level. 

But SLP is a putting statistic, and I think the fact that I'm losing them there is telling me that I have a weakness in putting.

So I said I won't be upset missing an 8' putt, seeing as how PGA Tour pros only make half of theirs from that range (and they're all better putters than I am, even Boo Weekley).  But if I have five 8' attempts in a round and I miss all of them, that's not something I'm happy about.

For reference on just how bad this is:

 

Your chart looks similar to mine vs my next "target" handicap (for me, vs a 15 handicap):

But when you look at their first "insights" page and do the comparison there, it gives very different results for the same rounds:

With the older "original" style of strokes gained/lost, it shows that I'm 2.46 strokes worse vs 15 handicapper.  But in the newer version, it shows that I'm only 0.58 strokes worse than a 15 handicapper. 

The numbers vs scratch are identical--they're only different with comparisons to other handicap levels.  The problem shows up also in the short game numbers: I'm either 0.18 better than a 15 handicapper or I'm 2.06 worse.  The differences are smaller for "off the tee" and "approach"--but they're not identical.

I've emailed Game Golf customer support about this in the past (long time ago), but obviously it hasn't been fixed.

Bottom line, I'm not sure which numbers to believe for short game or putting.  But you might want to look at yours in the "newer" format to see what it looks like there.  Or just compare yourself to scratch.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Missouri Swede

[DeadMan]

Neither of those are that bad. Look at this:

And this (GG has me as a 5.4 handicap, I believe):

[Shindig]

6 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

But when you look at their first "insights" page and do the comparison there, it gives very different results for the same rounds:

Huh, I'm getting something similar:

According to this, I lose .56 off the tee, .7 in approach, 1.62 in short game, and .95 in putting.  And considering I'm a 13.8 handicap and that's about 3.8 strokes lost compared to a 10 handicap, that makes a lot more sense.

I wonder why the discrepancy.

[dennyjones]

Obviously I have a problem but putting isn't one of them.  vs scratch I have only lost .82 stokes / round for the last 10.   I'll gladly trade somebody a short game for putting.

[Missouri Swede]

20 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

Obviously I have a problem but putting isn't one of them.  vs scratch I have only lost .82 stokes / round for the last 10.   I'll gladly trade somebody a short game for putting.

... right after you improve your tee shots on holes >500 yards to save 1 stroke every 20 rounds.

[amished]

That is pretty weird.  Clearly I'm not practicing my short game in the right manner in any case though.

[iacas]

So I looked into this a little myself.

All Rounds vs. Scratch

Those match up.

10 Rounds vs. Scratch

Those match up.

Last 10 vs. 5 Handicap

Eh?

• 1.38 + 0.45 = 1.83, not 2.44.
• 0.02 + 2.58 = 2.6, not 3.67
• 0.88 + 0.09 = 0.97, not 1.38
• 1.6 + 1.14 = 2.74, not 2.24

So… I have no idea what those dark graphs mean.

Has anyone emailed support and asked them?

[Shindig]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

Has anyone emailed support and asked them?

I think @Missouri Swede did.

Unrelated to the strokes gained issue:  today was my first round with the newly replaced belt clip, it stayed in place very well, other than I had to take off my belt when I got home to remove the GameGolf.  That's hardly a complaint though.

[Shindig]

I just noticed that a shot from yesterday's round (I already signed the GG round) is counted as a sand save.  I had a pitch from behind a bunker yesterday (pitched to a foot, I was quite pleased with the result) that it is listing as in the bunker.  Should I go back, unsign, edit, and re-sign the round, or does it not make a big difference?

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, Shindig said:

I just noticed that a shot from yesterday's round (I already signed the GG round) is counted as a sand save.  I had a pitch from behind a bunker yesterday (pitched to a foot, I was quite pleased with the result) that it is listing as in the bunker.  Should I go back, unsign, edit, and re-sign the round, or does it not make a big difference?

I wouldn’t worry about one shot. That said it’s easy enough to change it.

[iacas]

So I got an answer to why the graphs are "off" when you compare, say, your "last 10 rounds vs. a 10 handicapper" and stuff.

The ones on the darker background are the "correct" ones. So, for example, this is the right one:

What you can see there, for example, is that I'm comparing my last 10 rounds to a 10 handicapper.

I average 0.37 strokes lost to scratch off the tee (gee ain't that the truth lately, ugh), while the 10 averages 2.35. So I've gained 1.98 on him (2.35 - 0.37). I have gained 4.89 strokes on him with approaches, 1.59 strokes short game, and 3.26 strokes putting. That's 11.72 strokes.

My "multicolored bars" page says: -3.02 driving, -6.04 approach, -2.43 short game, and -2.17 putting (that's 13.66 strokes).

Paraphrased/edited their answer was: "The newer graphs (dark background) is the correct one of the two. There is a bug with the old graph which we are working on."