Jump to content


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo
  • Posts

    • I bet almost every player on tour has tested from good lies, bad lies, bare lies, heavy rough etc.They maybe don’t take it to the same level of detail, but tour pros surely practice from every situation etc. You think they don’t hit ball on the launch monitor from sloping lies, downhill etc
    • Shot 90 today!  That is my all time personal best.  It was on what I call my "home" course.  Day started off fantastic - 3 pars in a row!   I was thinking there may even be a birdie in the mix.  It was not to be - however no "snowmen", no triples!  4 pars countered the 4 doubles for my first round of "bogey" golf.  Had several great birdie looks - just did not sink them.  Funny thing as we were finishing 16, it began to sink in that if I did not blow up the last two, I had a real shot at a personal best round.  What were the factors that played into this?  We played up today - to the gold (just over 5400) as opposed to the whites (just over 6000), so that definitely contributed as I am a shorter hitter.  I have played from the whites and golds with almost equal scores still today felt like a "gold" day.  Did staying focused on keeping the weight forward during impact - most definitely!  Driver accuracy was the best ever - with only two drives of the twelve I used driver where what I would all bad slices in the trees, but fully playable.  The fairway misses were typically two yards or less off the short stuff.  Iron play, wedge play, fairways and hybrid were connecting.  On the greens, I chose to trust my alignment and it paid off.  Even misses stopped less than two feet from the hole - making tap-ins easier.  Yes, today was the best round ever!   
    • Day 19 - Same as above; hit some wedges, 8i’s, hybrid, 5W, Drivers.  playing tomorrow
    • This simply isn't true.  There are a lot of flaws with this logic. You identified that the golfer is 1 stroke behind a bogey golf pace, but there isn't enough info there using your +- system to determine what the strengths and weaknesses were for that golfer over those 5 holes. Hole 1. You give no + or - shots, when in reality, the fact that the bogey golfer two putted from 25 feet means he putted better than the average bogey golfer on that hole, hell he almost putted as good as a PGA tour player on that hole (average putts to hole out from 25 feet on the PGA tour is right around 1.93) Hole 2. The fact that the bogey golfer drove it in the fairway is likely gaining him some fraction of a stroke against the average bogey golfer who hits less than 50% of their fairways. A long iron to 100 yds out is also likely gaining a fraction of a stroke too since that shot likely went 160-200 yds and in play. You then gave him the + for hitting the green with his short iron, but you ignored the two pretty substantial plusses that preceded the 100 yd shot that resulted in the GIR. Hole 3. Again, you gave him a - rating for that hole, even though they were + on putting for that hole and most likely that mid iron that was hit 5 yds off the green was probably a slight + too compared to average bogey golfers. Hole 4. Same thing. If he chipped it to 6 feet this time then two putted that would be a + on the chip. Hole 5. Again with the putting. That 3 footer should be a + for the bogey golfer, even a 3 footer for a PGA tour player is gaining them fractions of a stroke so it should definitely be a + for the bogey golfer. I guess what I don't understand is how you are able to determine a golfer's strength and weakness in different areas without assigning a + or - to every single shot? Like reading over those 5 holes, you didn't assign any + or - to the putting or chipping but you specifically stated that pitching/chipping and putting are two of the areas you break out. It's not hard if you use strokes gained and compare similar handicap levels.  Many? Which most people would consider to be more than half? Not a chance. There is no way that most 20 handicappers reach over half of their par 5s in two. Sample size of 1, but I'm a 3 handicap and I don't even reach half of my par 5s in two, and thats even with me playing from 300-500 yd shorter tees than I realistically should be for my length. Heck I don't even reach a quarter of my par 5s in two and pretty much all of my par 5s are 475-550 yds and I have above average distance even for a 3 handicap. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Every shot needs to have it's own rating (which is exactly what strokes gained does) and your system doesnt go detailed enough since your results would obviously be skewed if you gave both of those shots a + but then the player still bogeyed the hole. Again, this has already been measured/quantified for all levels of golfers using strokes gained data. But you can't really. Not using the example holes you provided at least. If I were to come to you with that exact recap of my round and asked you which area of my game I needed to work on more, chipping/pitching or putting, how could you possibly quantify which area needed more work? Or if I asked you how did my driving compare to other bogey golfers over those 5 holes? That's not something, based on the recap you gave, that you would be able to answer.  If this system works for you great, but IMO you're making it much harder on yourself and much less accurate than if you were to use an existing stats tracking program. 
    • How is the single phrase I quoted at all about neurotic/ocd behavior? He did more practice on full swing shots from bad lies than other players on tour (according to some guy).

  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...