Shot Zone theory - does it work?

[chspeed]

I am considering adding the Shot Zone concept from LSW into my game. While the theory makes perfect sense, I'm wonder if any follow-up on the efficacy of using shot zones has been completed (I guess this question is for @iacas). In other words, does measuring your shot zones, and adjusting your club selection and target based on your shot zone, have a positive long-term effect on actual score? What about for a mid-high handicapper?

As stated in the book, mid/high handicappers have relatively large shot zones, even after removing the outliers. Choosing a new target and club (generally a longer club), could just increase the size of the shot zone for a particular shot, which in turn could offset the advantage of using a club that travels the correct distance.

The mid-high handicapper may also swing differently with the new target. For instance, if he always misses right, the theory will have him aiming further left. But this might just exasperate his slice.

Apologies if this was covered elsewhere, didn't see it anywhere.

Edited May 11, 2016 by chspeed

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, chspeed said:

In other words, does measuring your shot zones, and adjusting your club selection and target based on your shot zone, have a positive long-term effect on actual score? What about for a mid-high handicapper?

I would say an emphatic YES!

28 minutes ago, chspeed said:

could just increase the size of the shot zone for a particular shot, which in turn could offset the advantage of using a club that travels the correct distance.

As soon as you change your club the shot zone changes and it must be re-evaluated. If the new club brings into a lot more hazards then it might not be the best choice.

35 minutes ago, chspeed said:

The mid-high handicapper may also swing differently with the new target. For instance, if he always misses right, the theory will have him aiming further left. But this might just exasperate his slice.

As long as people set up with the intent that their target line has changed then it shouldn't effect their swing path as if they were actually opening their stance  more because they are not.

 

 

 

[allenc]

39 minutes ago, chspeed said:

In other words, does measuring your shot zones, and adjusting your club selection and target based on your shot zone, have a positive long-term effect on actual score? What about for a mid-high handicapper?

I agree with @saevel25's post.  I'd like to add that for an erratic enough golfer actually determining your shot distributions may be tough.  You may be slicing one day and hooking the next.  I don't think the following was brought up in the book but as far as I can figure there are two possible ways to handle that.

Find your shot blobs over many trips to the range or simulator to make sure you get an accurate sample of all the ways you may hit the ball.  Then when playing you assume all of those shot are equally likely for that day and plan accordingly.

Or you make several trips to the range and record a different shot blob (what are they called again?) for each.  You label them names such as "slicey day", "hooky day."  Then on the course you see how you are hitting them that day and choose the appropriate blob.

Which method you use depends on wether you believe the fact you hit more (for example) slices one day and hooks the other day is simply a matter of random variance; or whether there is actually something different in how you are swinging that leads to different shot patterns on different days.

[chspeed]

42 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I would say an emphatic YES!

I was hoping someone would say that!

 

43 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

As long as people set up with the intent that their target line has changed then it shouldn't effect their swing path as if they were actually opening their stance  more because they are not.

True, although the mind plays funny tricks on our golf swing.

20 minutes ago, allenc said:

Or you make several trips to the range and record a different shot blob (what are they called again?) for each.  You label them names such as "slicey day", "hooky day."  Then on the course you see how you are hitting them that day and choose the appropriate blob.

Interesting idea. Unfortunately, my bad days aren't that uniform, but are days in which I have more "outliers", in other words, more horrible shots that aren't anywhere near my intended target.

[Jeremie Boop]

I know my bad shot with everything tends to be a pull or hook. So, that being the case I naturally aim more right. Typically that works out, until/unless I have a day of pushes/slices . I haven't yet taken the time to actually map out true shotzones for my clubs because I'm in the middle of swing changes that could have a pretty large impact on them both in side to side and front to back spread.

 

[Grumpter]

1 hour ago, allenc said:

I agree with @saevel25's post.  I'd like to add that for an erratic enough golfer actually determining your shot distributions may be tough.  You may be slicing one day and hooking the next.  I don't think the following was brought up in the book but as far as I can figure there are two possible ways to handle that.

Find your shot blobs over many trips to the range or simulator to make sure you get an accurate sample of all the ways you may hit the ball.  Then when playing you assume all of those shot are equally likely for that day and plan accordingly.

Or you make several trips to the range and record a different shot blob (what are they called again?) for each.  You label them names such as "slicey day", "hooky day."  Then on the course you see how you are hitting them that day and choose the appropriate blob.

Which method you use depends on wether you believe the fact you hit more (for example) slices one day and hooks the other day is simply a matter of random variance; or whether there is actually something different in how you are swinging that leads to different shot patterns on different days.

I definitely have erratic tee shots and can end up decently right or left. Knowing the issue is toe shots there are too many variables IMO to get an accurate spray pattern for the most erratic days. On the worst days I plan for anything can happen and aim to a point where I have the least probability of having to take a penalty stroke (or two). That may mean aiming into the tree line most of the day or playing more than one short par 4 with Chicken Wedge off the tee and Chicken Wedge for the approach. 2 stroke penalties (O/B) are round/score killers at my handicap level.

For a higher handicap I wonder if they might be better off being a little more aggressive with certain shots? A 1 or 2 stroke penalty may not be as devastating to someone with a 25 handicap.

[MrFlipper]

These threads about LSW and if it works (or not) are fascinating to me, in the sense that folks ("general" folks, not specifically the OP) tend to question whether the concepts work in practice, whether or not it works for them because they are different than the "normal" golfer, that their game is different from everyone else somehow. Seems a lot of folks are more comfortable going down the road they already know than actually doing something to change their games for the better. Like the thread about the guy who would be scratch with a better mental game, or the old "are you conning yourself" thread: if you commit to LSW then you have to face the truths therein, which are gonna be uncomfortable. I know a bunch were for me. I sure wasn't as skilled as I thought I was. But my game has improved more since I got the book than I had, on my own, in many years. To actually improve at my age is really neat (at least to me). I actually think I can get back down to a handicap level that I haven't seen in years (yeah I could be conning myself haha), and that's thanks to LSW.

You have to commit to it, without excuses. And that can be hard to do if it picks some scabs off your game. 

One of my friends who read the book and was an early zealot has already regressed to old habits (to the detriment of his game). Not doing shot zones, shooting for the flag every time, things that he should (and does) know better. But he does it anyway. And his game improvement has stalled and he's frustrated!  LSW takes work and a willingness to change some old preconceived ideas, and that can be a really hard thing to do. I guess it can be easier mentally just to think that better golf is just a band-aid around the corner away. But that never seems to work out.

[chspeed]

34 minutes ago, MrFlipper said:

These threads about LSW and if it works (or not) are fascinating to me, in the sense that folks ("general" folks, not specifically the OP) tend to question whether the concepts work in practice, whether or not it works for them because they are different than the "normal" golfer, that their game is different from everyone else somehow.

I know you gave a disclaimer, but I want to clarify that I personally was in no way implying I am different than a normal golfer. I'm a big supporter in statistically sound, evidence-based approaches to everything from medicine to golf. My question specifically addressed the results in the shot zone approach. In the book, the theory of shot zones was presented as one in which using an accurate analysis of your shot zones to choose a club and direction that best matched a specific shot would improve your score, or at least get you closer to the hole. While it's a very good theory, has it been proven to a reasonable degree? (reasonable - nobody's doing double-blind studies here).

As we all know, many good theories turn out not to produce the results we expect. I'm hoping this one did!

[allenc]

1 hour ago, Grumpter said:

For a higher handicap I wonder if they might be better off being a little more aggressive with certain shots? A 1 or 2 stroke penalty may not be as devastating to someone with a 25 handicap.

I've thought the same.  For example, someone may be able to clear a 180 yard water hazard with a good shot but could very easily not.  However, if they lay up with a 90 yard shot they could blade it 120 into the water anyway, or if they are successful with the layup they could chunk the next shot into the water.  If they go for it now it's like they get one extra free swing to clear it and they will at least get the distance anyway.

[mdl]

59 minutes ago, allenc said:

I've thought the same.  For example, someone may be able to clear a 180 yard water hazard with a good shot but could very easily not.  However, if they lay up with a 90 yard shot they could blade it 120 into the water anyway, or if they are successful with the layup they could chunk the next shot into the water.  If they go for it now it's like they get one extra free swing to clear it and they will at least get the distance anyway.

This is very clearly, directly dealt with in the book.  There's lots of discussion of assessing what will lead to the lowest average score.  Whether to take slightly risky shots is explicitly covered.  As in, if you have a hazard to clear, under what set of risks do you try to clear, when do you not?  I'm pretty sure there's even a few fully laid out examples sort of like:

You have a 90% chance of carrying the water, a 60% chance of hitting the green if you do clear, and will average 1.75 putts given your expected dispersion of approach.  You have a 95% chance of not blading a layup into the water, but then a 40% chance of  hitting the green and will average 1.9 putts given your expected dispersion.  Do some math and you see you will average a slightly lower score trying to clear the hazard.  Then I'm pretty sure there's some discussion of rules of thumb to think about for these kinds of hole strategy questions so you don't have to do relatively complex equations in your head all the time.

[Dave2512]

It works if you put in the time to develop one. But as much as the knowledge there is a admitting your strengths and weaknesses and applying that to shot choices on the course.

That can mean not attempting the thrilling shot because the best score possible is the goal. IME recreational golfers rarely play smart. 

[Dinoma]

An added side benefit of keeping shot zones is that they may embarrass you to work hard to make them smaller, I sure was. I also have the record of how big they were and its a nice little way of seeing that I have improved that part of my game even if my scores don't always match this improvement.

[iacas]

On May 11, 2016 at 10:15 AM, chspeed said:

I am considering adding the Shot Zone concept from LSW into my game. While the theory makes perfect sense, I'm wonder if any follow-up on the efficacy of using shot zones has been completed (I guess this question is for @iacas). In other words, does measuring your shot zones, and adjusting your club selection and target based on your shot zone, have a positive long-term effect on actual score? What about for a mid-high handicapper?

Yes.

We don't have a bunch of empirical evidence with a hundred-plus golfers, but we have a lot of anecdotal evidence, and single-instance evidence. By that I mean we have a good amount of these two types of information:

• Players we know during playing lessons where we aim them and club them. We're adjusting for their Shot Zones, and getting them around the course. They typically shoot some of their lowest scores ever. None have shot higher than their average. 20-30 rounds or so for me alone, a bit fewer for Dave.
• Players we coach telling us about their rounds and their Shot Zones and strategies. The more committed they are, the better they generally score. A few hundred rounds here, perhaps a thousand, but none of it is directly observed, and our hunch is many aren't as fastidious as they could/should be.

On May 11, 2016 at 10:15 AM, chspeed said:

As stated in the book, mid/high handicappers have relatively large shot zones, even after removing the outliers. Choosing a new target and club (generally a longer club), could just increase the size of the shot zone for a particular shot, which in turn could offset the advantage of using a club that travels the correct distance.

I've never really seen an instance where hitting the proper club makes the Shot Zone so large that it offsets the advantage gained. Typically you're talking about 1 or maybe 2 clubs more, and those SZs are not going to be substantially larger… but being 1 or 2 clubs short is a BAD miss.

On May 11, 2016 at 10:15 AM, chspeed said:

The mid-high handicapper may also swing differently with the new target. For instance, if he always misses right, the theory will have him aiming further left. But this might just exasperate his slice.

Generally a guy aiming more left will actually slice less, because if anything he'll swing out and to the right a bit more.

But that's beside the point. Let's say on a shot you're trying to aim at the back left part of the green, because you come up short/right. That back left corner of the green is still your target. You line up to it however you normally line up and TRY to hit the ball there.

So, golfers generally swing the same, because they're still hitting at a "target."

On May 11, 2016 at 0:53 PM, MrFlipper said:

You have to commit to it, without excuses. And that can be hard to do if it picks some scabs off your game. 

One of my friends who read the book and was an early zealot has already regressed to old habits (to the detriment of his game). Not doing shot zones, shooting for the flag every time, things that he should (and does) know better. But he does it anyway. And his game improvement has stalled and he's frustrated!  LSW takes work and a willingness to change some old preconceived ideas, and that can be a really hard thing to do. I guess it can be easier mentally just to think that better golf is just a band-aid around the corner away. But that never seems to work out.

Disappointing about your friend (maybe you can prod him back into it), and thanks for the part I chopped out. I wanted to highlight the bold part though.

Even people who know better have a hard time aiming at a spot on the green well away from the flag, even from as little as 80 yards away or so. It takes some really strong mental discipline.

On May 12, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Dinoma said:

An added side benefit of keeping shot zones is that they may embarrass you to work hard to make them smaller, I sure was. I also have the record of how big they were and its a nice little way of seeing that I have improved that part of my game even if my scores don't always match this improvement.

True. And for those who don't get instruction, it will encourage you to do one of the first things we do for all of our students: give them a pattern.

[chspeed]

On 5/15/2016 at 9:18 PM, iacas said:

Yes.

We don't have a bunch of empirical evidence with a hundred-plus golfers, but we have a lot of anecdotal evidence, and single-instance evidence.

That's good enough for me.

On 5/15/2016 at 9:18 PM, iacas said:

Typically you're talking about 1 or maybe 2 clubs more, and those SZs are not going to be substantially larger… but being 1 or 2 clubs short is a BAD miss.

OK

On 5/15/2016 at 9:18 PM, iacas said:

Generally a guy aiming more left will actually slice less, because if anything he'll swing out and to the right a bit more.

On 5/15/2016 at 9:18 PM, iacas said:

So, golfers generally swing the same, because they're still hitting at a "target."

Maybe I misunderstand, but these two comments seems a bit contradictory to me. In the first example, the golfer subconsciously adjusts his swing and goes at his original target by swinging out the the right even though he's aiming left to his new SZ target. In the second example, he's swinging the same and trusting his SZ target.

Anyway, thanks for the responses, and I'm going to commit to this later this year when I feel like I've gotten where I want to go with my swing changes.

 

[phillyk]

On ‎5‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 6:18 PM, iacas said:

Even people who know better have a hard time aiming at a spot on the green well away from the flag, even from as little as 80 yards away or so. It takes some really strong mental discipline.

True. And for those who don't get instruction, it will encourage you to do one of the first things we do for all of our students: give them a pattern.

This morning on Morning Drive, they had a segment where they talked to a sports psychologist or something and talking about pre shot routine and how that guy inside your head can lead to negative thoughts.  The example to try and develop a pattern was a piano player, and it really got to me.  As you play any instrument really, there is no thinking about negatives or whether you'll play the right note.  You see and picture the overall piece.  The body takes over because your mind is seeing the flow and pattern.  Now golf takes a lot longer, obviously.  But I think the same ideas apply.  You develop a pattern of shots and as you play, you re-enact that pattern to create a sound game.  Jason Day stuck to his pattern and plan, regardless of where he was in the standings.  The shot zones are creating the notes so that you can make "music." 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, chspeed said:

Maybe I misunderstand, but these two comments seems a bit contradictory to me. In the first example, the golfer subconsciously adjusts his swing and goes at his original target by swinging out the the right even though he's aiming left to his new SZ target. In the second example, he's swinging the same and trusting his SZ target.

Yes, and golfers typically do one or the other. Golfers tend not to do both.

Golfers aiming left who normally slice often slice less. They feel the target "out to the right" and don't swing so far left.

Golfers who understand their Shot Zones are trying to hit to a target, say, back left of the green. So they line up like normal, and TRY to hit it there, which results in their short/right pattern. i.e. on the green.

The latter is what LSW teaches you. The former is an instructional thing.

P.S. Don't wait. Start applying the principles now.

The only thing you have to lose is strokes off your scorecard.

[Lihu]

Of course shot zone theory works.

Works great once I figured out how to use it. 2 years ago, I had no idea, but now it's just a part of my game.

[chspeed]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

P.S. Don't wait. Start applying the principles now.

The only thing you have to lose is strokes off your scorecard.

Noted. Thanks.