Jump to content

DaveLeeNC

Established Member
  • Content Count

    322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Sandbagger

About DaveLeeNC

  • Rank
    League Member
  • Birthday 11/30/1948

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    6
  • Handedness
    Righty
  1. FWIW, the greens on No. 2 in 2005 were just fine a few days after the 2005 US Open. I believe that the issue here is that if you push these greens to 13-14 on the stimp, they are mostly "unapproachable". I don't know about 1999. dave
  2. I took another spin at this just for grins. Another stat that I generate from the data that I collect is "up/downs with par putting". I look at all the shots that are not on the green but are within x yards of the pin. If the next shot is not on the green then it is a 0% up/down. If it is (for example) on the green and 6' from the pin I look at my putting table which says that I should average 1.6 strokes to hole out. That converts to a 40% up/down. If I am within 5' my table says 1.5 so that is a 50% up/down. Within 3' says 1.1 so that is 90% up/down, etc. I normally use 35 yards as my "up/down limit" (all shots from off the green but 35 or less yards from the pin are calculated). I changed that to 65 yards and did the following. 1) I treated my "full shot game" measurement as completely characterized by "Error at par" 2) I treated my "short game measurement" as completely characterized by my "Net Putting" and "Up/down with Par Putting" parameter (with the 65 yard limit). The nice thing here is that these two numbers have no cross correlation so they can be directly combined (sum of squares). So my Full Shot Game correlation with "Scores against par" is the same as before (0.67) My Short Game correlation with "Scores against par" comes out to 0.65. So basically my data indicates that the short game (as I defined it) and the long game (as I defined it) are equally important. FWIW. dave ps. For those of you who are not experienced with correlation factors, here is an interesting exericize. Assume that we have 3 numbers A which is a random number between 1 and 100 B which is a random number between 1 and 100 (independent of A) C which is the sum of A and B The correlation between A and C will be a tad over 0.7 The correlation between B and C will be a tad over 0.7 The correlation between A and B will be 0 In this particular case the correlation between A/C (squared) plus the correlation between B/C (squared) will be 1.0
  3. Tim Herron in shorts comes to mind. dave
  4. FWIW, I have noticed in my own putting data that I putt short putts measureably better when they are second putts (typically a par putt for a pro) vs. first putts (typically a birdie putt for a pro). I assume that this is because I have additional information about speed and break on second putts. I wonder how much this might affect the referenced data. dave
  5. I have some data relevant to this conversation. I use my own "home-brewed" stats system (MS Access based) and this doesn't represent all the stats that I generate. But I have listed some of the ones that fit in this conversation. First a couple of definitions. Error at Par - how far you are from the pin after 1 stroke on a par 3, 2 on a par 4, and 3 on a par 5. This is independent of position (20 yards from the pin on the green or in a bunker - it is just 20 yards) Net Putting - I have a table that defines how many strokes I think that I should average to hole out from every distance from 1' to 99'. 1' and 2' is 1.0 (I should make all my 1 and 2 footers). 3' is 1.1. 5' is 1.5 (I should make half my 5 footers - no 3 putts). 20' is 2.0. 50' is 2.25, etc. So two putting from 50' is 0.25 strokes "under par". 3 putting from 50' is 0.75 strokes "over par". What I have is roughly 325 rounds in my database where my index varied between a low of 3.7 and a high of 7.5. What I have done is to find the correlation coefficient between a bunch of parameters and the resulting score vs. par. A correlation of 1.0 means that the two parameters are perfectly correlated (if you know one you know the other). A correlation coefficient of 0 means that there is no correlation. I expressed all correlations as positive numbers just for convenience, even though some of the correlations are negative - for example the higher the GIR's the lower the Score Vs. Par. All that said, here are the correlations of "Score Vs. Par" against .. Number of Putts - .50 Net Putting - .56 Number of 3 putts - .37 Lag Putting Error - .22 Driving Distance - .21 GIR's - .59 Error at Par - .67 Fairways - .29 UpDowns - .43 Number of Birdies - .48 Birdie Opportunities - .47 (birdie putts of 15' or less) Number of Double Bogeys or worse - .62 When I look at this data I come to the conclusion that it is all important. Driving distance and accuracy clearly being the least important of the measured parameters. The correlation with number of double bogeys was interesting as I only average 1.13 doubles per round in this data (I am a pretty steady golfer and gnerally play from the middle rather than back tees). Still interesting. I would also conclude from this that the Net Putting measure that I use is somewhat better than number of putts. And the Error at Par measure is somewhat better than GIR's. FWIW. dave
  6. The cost of local golf play is kind of a local thing. But from an equipment perspective, you need to go the used route. Stuff is WAY cheaper used. ebay, the various 'for sale' forums on boards like this, Play it Again Sports, some amazing finds show up occasionally at Salvation Army type stores, etc. Good luck. dave
  7. I haven't read Zen Golf (maybe I should - I am not a pariticularly good putter). However I am pretty confident of two related things. 1) The mechanics that "I just use" in throwing a ball underhanded to someone is "naturally correct". Just focus on doing it and it will mostly do well. 2) The mechanics that "I just use" when putting (or hitting a full shot for that matter) is not "naturally correct". Just focusing on doing it will not generate anything close to good results. What generates good results is not what is natural (for me, anyway). Maybe I am wrong in my own perceptions of myself, or maybe I am somewhat unique in this regard. But it seems to me that there is some significance to this "perceived fact". dave ps. I have done extensive work with both arc strokes and more "straight back/straight through" type strokes. It doesn't seem to have a big effect on my 'observation of myself'.
  8. FWIW, a soft feel on a full shot is different than a soft feel on a 'low clubhead speed' shot (putt, chip, etc). One doesn't necessarily imply the other. dave
  9. Two balls that I really liked but quit playing because they were no longer made ... Strata Tour Ultimate (despite a cover with the durability of wet tissue paper) Callaway HX Red (the Blue was a great ball around the greens but I found it a bit short off the tee) dave
  10. If you really were coming into the ball with an angle of attack of -22 degrees, you probably wouldn't even be seeing the ball get off the ground. 5 degrees positive angle of attack would be really good - level can be very workable and very slightly negative is not a killer (but also not optimum). IIRC, Tiger hits his driver with a slightly negative angle of attack. dave
  11. I would not focusing specifically on "hitting down on the ball". Instead I would focus on - forward shaft lean at impact - bottoming out your swing infront of the ball (for shots not hit off a tee) Bobby Clampett's book The Impact Zone might be helpful here. dave
  12. if the bottom of your swing is at or ahead of the ball and your shaft is verticle (or better) forward at impact, it isn't a big deal (IMHO). dave ps. Despite what you might think it is possible to hit down on the ball with a shaft that 'leans backward' at impact. That is not a good solution - take it from experience
  13. Based on what I saw in 2005, most of the conditioning issues seem manageable to me. In particular the vast majority of the spectator traffic is through the pinestraw. The fairway crossings will be mostly a mess, but that is true on Sundays no matter what you do. A course like No. 2 typically sees maybe 160 golfers/day so the 'load' created by 4 days of tournament play really isn't huge. Practice days are a bigger impact. IMHO what this really does is limit what the USGA can do to course conditions in the first week. They regularly dry out a course close to death for the weekend. They will have to be very cautious in 2014. I assume that they will widen the fairways a tad for the ladies (converting 1st cut to fairway should not be a big deal). And they will also I assume cut down the rough an inch or so - also relatively easy as bermuda is really tolerant of all kinds of mistreatment once the weather turns hot (and it gets watered). dave
  14. I'm not sure exactly what "scooping" is in your swing. But what is critical is to create (with shots not hit off a tee) ... 1) an angle of attack that is level or downward 2) a shaft angle at impact that is verticle or (better) forward leaning Anything else (for shots not hit off a tee) leaves you absolutely no margin for error. Downward is far less important than "not upward". dave
  15. If you went to a lighter shaft and weighted the club back to where the swingweight was originally, you would probably end up with a shaft that was 20-40 grams lighter than before. But you would only have to add somewhere in the 5-10 grams of weight to the clubhead (rough approximation) to get back to the original swingweight. Constant swingweight is not magic or a firm requirement. But it is not a bad idea either. The "latest" in club matching is "MOI matching" which is different than swingweight matching. A google search on that term should yield way more than you are willing to wade through. dave
×
×
  • 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...