Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Image Comments posted by iacas

  1. 33 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

    @Herkimer That’s pretty straightforward no? You’re not reading nor making any effort to think reasonable about this. Why are you doing that? What’s your concern about putting be the Holy Grail of golf

    Calm down man. We're talking here, and until @Herkimer stops talking*, we're all still in it.

    * Though that may have already occurred, who knows…?

  2. 44 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

    If you play golf perfectly, ie. hit every green in regulation, two putts for par, on a 72 par course you will have taken 36 shots with the other 13 clubs combined and 36 putts. This alone highlights the importance of the putter.

    That's an fairly bad way of looking at that. You'll find that "counting" stats are often bad, and this is one of those times.

    In Lowest Score Wins we defined something we call "Separation Value." It's the measure of a skill's potential to affect your score.

    Putting has a fairly low Separation Value. From 20 feet, the game's best players (PGA Tour players) take about 1.86 putts. A scratch golfer takes… about 1.89. A guy who shoots 90 takes about 2.02. So, over 18 holes, a full round of golf, the guy who shoots 90 will lose a whopping 2.88 strokes to the PGA Tour player if you put them at 20 feet on every green. He's lost 15+ shots elsewhere!

    Putting has a low Separation Value®. It's not where PGA Tour players separate themselves from other PGA Tour players, and it's not where PGA Tour players separate themselves from amateur golfers. It's the area (of the four: approach shots, driving, short game, putting) of the game that has the least separation, in fact. They go in the order I listed: the greatest separation occurs with approach shots, with driving second.

    It makes sense. My grandma (before she died) could make a twenty-foot putt. She'll never flush a 4-iron from a hanging lie to 25' on two-tiered green over a water hazard from 225 out. PGA Tour players get to the PGA Tour because they're the best ball strikers.

    Counting stats are bad. A PGA Tour pro taps in nine times per round. Let's say they shoot 72. Those nine tap-ins count for 12.5% of their strokes. Yet virtually anyone in the world could have faced those same putts and taken… nine putts, same as the PGA Tour player. No separation there.

    Please read this and let me know what your answer is, @Herkimer.

    44 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

    Now obviously, it is not quite as straightforward as that as it is rare for any golfer, even the top professionals to hit every green. However, around 27 putts a round is considered good for a pro and that would probably result in a scoring average of perhaps 68? So, not half, but still a considerable percentage of the overall shots would be with the putter.

    I'm a better putter than all but about five players on the PGA Tour (and that's not a hypothetical), yet I don't have a chance of competing on the PGA Tour. Why? Because my ball striking is nowhere near good enough, even as a +1. And when I say "nowhere near" I mean NOWHERE. And yet I'm a pretty darn good ball striker, all things considered.

    Putting is the area of lowest separation, and counting shots is one of the worst ways to assess the value of a shot.

    44 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

    The second point I want to make is more about confidence. Having confidence with your putter takes the pressure off the rest of your game. If you are out of position off the tee you are less likely to try something desperate to get to the green wth your next. You will probably be confident to play conservatively, putting the ball pack into play knowing if you put in on the green for your next shot you will fancy holing a putt to make your par.

    I'm not going to debate the idea that being confident is a bad thing, but… this is just a bad way to look at that in two ways:

    1. PGA Tour players who often putt for par don't last very long.
    2. You're better off trying to get near the green, not laying back or merely "putting the ball back into play." Shorter shots are easier shots, and proximity is important.
    The best players aren't putting themselves into position where they need to scramble and make a 10-footer for par very often. Those players don't last on the PGA Tour for very long.
    44 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

    Tiger Woods made a pretty decent career (understatement) by missing fairways by a considerable amount on a regular basis then making a ten footer for par to keep in touch with the leaders.

    This is where your perception isn't really going to line up with reality. Yes, he occasionally did that, but what Tiger did best was drive the ball well enough, but hit his approach shots phenomenally well. Look at the chart above: outside of one year, Tiger never finished lower than fourth in Strokes Gained approach shots.

    The year he finished outside of fourth… he was fifth. Yet his short game went as low as 89 (twice) if you exclude the year he was 160th, and his putting was 18th, 21st, 91st, 49th, and 27th.

    Look at how the numbers in the "Total" column compare to the numbers in the other columns. Tiger was first in strokes gained total 7 years, and second once. Because… of his ballstriking. When his driving suffered in 2010-11, he finished lower in total strokes gained.

    This isn't atypical.

    44 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

    Confidence in his putting placed, pretty much, no limit to how many times he could get up and down in a round. How many times did he come in with a one under 71 or whatever, and the commentator said ‘that was a 78 in anyone else’s hands."

    This is part of the problem: you're believing your own experiences or what you think someone else may have said over actual data.

    The data isn't biased. It just "is."

    Open your mind.

    There's another topic that'll probably blow your mind.

  3. 3 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

    I know what I've seen over the years and what I've experienced myself in my own game.

    You’re wrong. The top guys are the top guys because of their ballstriking.

    Don’t take it personally.

    You’re not bothering to actually discuss this though, so until you take a little time to see what we are saying and attempt a rebuttal or something relevant… this is going nowhere fast.

  4. 12 hours ago, CR McDivot said:

    So, the primary movement of the wrist in the golf swing is radial and ulnar deviation (create and release lag)? I assume, of course, there is a bit of pronation and supination particularly in the trailing wrist?

    All of which is involuntary (a result of inertia created elsewhere)?

    All of those go on, and some are "involuntary" but that depends on the student - what they already do properly, etc. I've had to tell all people to do all of the motions more or less (though radial and ulnar deviation are the least likely to need to be fixed - without those, you whiff).

    Extension - Trail wrist extends quite a bit on the backswing. Lead wrist extends quite a bit through impact and the rest of the follow-through.
    Flexion - Lead wrist flexes during the downswing, particularly if it was cupped at all during the backswing. Trail wrist flexes in the follow-through.

    Ulnar - Downswing, both wrists.
    Radial - Backswing, both wrists. Follow-through, late, both.

    Pronation, Supination - Opposite for each hand, and occurs as the forearms rotate in the backswing and downswing.

  • 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...