M2R

The guy who published the Golfmetrics paper (subject of the article cited in the OP here) and the guy who helped the PGA set up the strokes gained putting statistic is Mark Broadie, same guy in both cases. But aside from that I don't get the thrust of your comment. They are really two different things Golfmetrics is based on FRL referenced off Am1 players and a rather small sample size, strokes gained putting is fractional putts gained or lost based on distance referenced to some statistical database and normalized for the entire field. If you go to http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02564.html#2013 and look at the very bottom you will see Broadie mentioned, and if you add the best average .854 (Greg Chalmers) to the worst average -.961 (Eric Meierdierks) you will find a 1.815 stroke spread. But that is totally meaningless and bogus methodology in regard to the 1.8 number in the quote I posted (the addition is valid though). The Golfmetrics data and the PGA data just can't be compared that way, or in hardly any other way - IMO anyway.

If you like the X100 other than stiffness, a soft stepped X100 will get you into the same 6.5 FCM range as the PX 6.0 and KBS Tour S+. I have S300 and PX 5.5 (no X100 though) and like Mike said they seem like very different animals to me as well. Not that I dislike the PX 5.5, just generally prefer the S300 more. Have never had any KBS shafts.

I think this is more realistic than some of the other suggested possibilities, look what happened on the 15th at the Northwestern Mutual yesterday. Like I was trying to point out in an earlier post, once a player has the skill set, a large part of the errors and misses are just errors in judgement as to conditions and how everything is going to interact - not bad shots (bad shots do happen too of course at times). I saw Tiger three putt twice, once from what the announcer called inside five feet. Bubba missed what looked like a 2 to 2.5 foot putt on the 18th to three putt. I think the reason the pros three putt less is the same reason they make more birdies. First putt distance to the hole averages 17 feet across all handicap levels (Mark Broadie: Assessing Golfer Performance Using Golfmetrics: Columbia University). However, for a pro the putt is often for birdie and ours is for something worse than par. First priority hit more GIR, second priority get distance to the pin on GIR down, unfortunately I am experiencing a wide disparity between theory and practice OK just saw MeltdWhiskey posted pretty much the same things before I got this typed.

Are there modest courses that might stay open weather permitting like Broadview or Indian Hills, both off 16 toward Columbus (don't know the courses toward Newark)? Or is it just not worth the hassle? I think winter golf has it's own set of charms and can be quite fun at times.

How is that different than - "(at the PGA Tour level)." in the post I quoted?

I was trying to add stuff to lists yesterday and wanted to set the list photo manually (and semi-permanently) but it kept changing when items were added (not sure of the exact algorithm though). I'm pretty sure this is default behaviour but just wanted to bump this thread in case "see improvement eventually" was still in the works as it was really starting to annoy me (too much coffee :)

Quote: Originally Posted by iacas Tiger's round today is an example of how important the long game is (at the PGA Tour level). Interesting and unexpected line I just stumbled across in the Broadie Golfmetrics paper: Comparing the Pro1 and Pro2 groups shows differences of 1.8, 2.1, 1.1 and 0.3 shots per round in the putting, long, short and sand games, respectively. For PGA tour players, putting is relatively more important and is nearly as important as the long game in explaining scoring differences.

If it is some scramble format and one (or more) of your shots is legitimately used over Graeme that in itself would be a good memory for me. A scramble format might be one of the few ways you could legitimately go head to head with a pro and say you came out on top. I'm not saying wish for a scramble but if it is ... you know make lemonade.

I bet it is like the ball striking thing then, as high handicappers we just don't see it because we play with the wrong class of players. As a sub 7 I guess you might tend to play with better players as well?

Just looked at the Lake Nona website, just getting a chance to play there would be a treat for me but to play with Graeme as well, all kidding aside I just can't hardly conceive it. You are one lucky guy! Congratulations.

HA!!! Made me look up penal and punitive with that one, turns out I'm not keen on being penalized but I'm really into punishment Get on it man! Isn't Brighton just a hop, skip, and jump from Mullen Was in Burlington Sunday and it was something like 67 degrees, crazy! Not like that now though I hear!!!

Quote: Originally Posted by RFKFREAK For those of you lower handicappers, how often do you find yourself chunking shots off the fairway? I'm hoping by practicing my long game that I'll stop doing that. I'm not lower handicap but the original study referenced by the article cited in this thread had a formula to estimate how many awful shots would be considered acceptable for the score recorded. From the paper: "The awful shots could come from bad swings or from a strategy that is too risky, e.g., attempting shots with a low probability of success." Quote: "For amateur golfers a significant contributor to high scores is a relatively small number of awful shots. Equation (2) relates awful shots to score and gives a benchmark to measure golfer consistency." Awful Shots = 0.24*Score – 17.1 I thought there might be some excitement to have an objective measure of how many awful shots is acceptable as a tool for self assessment. But I also though the statement below would generate some controversy so ... IDK! Quote: Across golfers it is shown, somewhat surprisingly, that longer hitters tend to be straighter than shorter hitters.

Good point on the distance for range balls. I started noticing that even a moderate amount of "smoothing" of the dimple points really makes the ball fall out of the air and move in crazy patterns sometimes. I have started sorting them out and hit the better balls with longer clubs if possible. Usually just end up leaving the smoothest balls behind unless I'm working on a shortish club. No I don't know anything about archery really ... found a few arrows earlier this year cutting through the woods on the way to play and someone said archery season for deer was open, didn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling that is my sum total knowledge. Thanks for the info on how you arrived at gathering your yardage data, kind of clever really. I don't have shot dispersion data on any clubs except SW and my best day I recorded was +/- 5 yards direction and +/- 12 yards distance on six 50-80 yard shots (even then I excluded one shot because it was fat and didn't get half way to the hole). I have a feeling if I did start gathering data on more clubs the numbers would be astronomically large, something to think about I guess. I used to finish most range sessions by playing a virtual 9 hole course the same way I think you both mean. The other thing I would do sometimes is pick a distance and try and hit three shots with every iron in the bag to that spot. These days I usually just hit one club for the entire session, it is hard to know what is optimal without some professional help.

Quote: Originally Posted by 40learner ... Best advice to myself or anybody is try and hit practice balls before the game. I tee off around 7am every week so I never warm up pre game. I keep 2 whiffle balls in my bag for this reason. If I can't hit practice balls (and the wind isn't too strong) they are actually pretty good (compared to not hitting at all) as I really just want to loosen up and establish a tempo more than anything else. Only takes a minute or two to hit 6-10 short iron shots off to the side somewhere safe. Quote: Originally Posted by Lihu ... Improving my "shot value" is pretty much what I am working on at the range now. I am trying to hit specific targets and repeat as many times as I can. When I get to 3 out of 5 or 6 hits within about a 10 yard circle, I move to another club. This does not happen very often because my typical shot pattern is as follows: 50 degree (U) club- 5 yards PW 6 to 8 yards 9i I can get a dispersion pattern in the 10 yard range, unless I mishit a ball and it goes 15 yards off line and short 8i to 6i is about 20 yards 5i and 4i are about 30 yards 21 and 18 degree hybrids are about 25 yards 3W about 40 yards Driver is about 30 yards wide and maybe 50 yards deep (some of this variation could also be due to random flight limited balls mixed in the buckets), the 30 yard side to side is definitely me. I'll let you know if I can improve from where I am now. Only time and practice will tell. That is great info, I love stats! If you would indulge me would you take note (or measure if it doesn't hinder play) your dispersion on U-9i during an actual round and report direction and distance separately.? The study noted in the "Is the long game more important than short game?" thread found that: Quote: For amateur golfers, distance errors on short game and sand shots are about three times larger than direction errors, and instruction or practice which focuses on reducing distance errors is a beneficial approach to lower scores. And I experience this same 3 to 1 spread in the short clubs, but only during a round . At the range hitting several balls with the same club I actually develop a tempo and feel to where the dispersion in direction and distance is not representative of how I actually play under the gun. I was intrigued that you did mention direction and distance on 9i and driver, made me wonder if the other were more or less uniform.

Sand Hill Golf Club: This doesn't look too bad ... Unless you are in it . Once heard Sand Hills looks more like the terrain found on the surface of the moon than on a golf course, but I can't find that reference now.

Four things I would like to comment on: 1. Score, 2. Handicap Index, 3. Shot Values, and 4. Competence. Observations and thoughts over a period spanning about 4 years some current some not. 1. Score - Without changing anything in your game, and using statistics, try and find a course with the lowest rating and slope that complements your strengths (verified by actual statistics not just guessing ... if possible). For example, shortish hitter with great lag putting - look for a shorter course with nice large green complexes. Long, a bit wild, and a weak wedge player - look for a longer course but with rating well below par and slope as low as possible. Every person should be looking for different things and sometimes what looks good on paper does not pan out, may take some trial and error. 2. Handicap Index - As above, using statistics try and find a course/tee combination with the highest slope and rating (that plays just inside your competence level) and where the predominate features match your best skills. Also the course should ideally not have a lot of features that would test your weakest skills, for example very heavily bunkered if bunker shots were particularly difficult at your present skill set. 3. Shot Value - This is a tough one. I do not care too much about score or HCI either. I do care about shot values meaning how far did the shot I hit deviate from the shot I planned and visualized. The only way I have found to be fairly objective is to divorce myself from the score. Nothing new, has been stated before, but something to be aware of. For example as a ~15 player I hit most shots consistently poorly but actually played/scored overall OK. But at ~13 I really, really started working on ball contact/control and eventually got to where ~30% of my shots were fairly well struck and 65% were still my typically mis-hit wobblers, the other 5% or so are just really poor. But my HCI actually ballooned 5 strokes or so and only started to reverse itself when maybe 50% or better full shots were reasonably solid and less than 50% were "other". It is just a nightmare for planning a shot when there is a 30% chance it will be semi-solid and a 65% or so chance it will be the old weak shot (or worse). Ball contact/control better overall (but more inconsistent), scoring and HCI through the roof! And yet I play with quite a few that judge the shot value solely by how close it lands to the hole, not how it got there. I totally get that, it just is not something I want to embrace. Again two thing working at odds, on the surface better contact/control can only seem like a good thing but if it comes in small increments that introduce inconsistency it can actually be very destructive to scoring in the short term. 4. Competence - My first season I was blissfully ignorant of what could go wrong and the consequences. I actually got some really good advice as a beginner ... I did not know it was good I just followed it as best as I could, again ignorance. I just flailed away at the ball and was as likely to post 131 as 94. Today I will often draw up a shot and intend to hit it that way, which I do only to find out that while my execution was more or less OK, my planning and visualization of the shot were in some way flawed. But my ball striking had to get to a fairly competent level to experience this. Before that, my decision making was like my first season, blissfully ignorant of what could go wrong. Only when my ball striking became somewhat competent was it revealed that my decision making was actually totally unskilled and unsophisticated. Just another example of how some new circumstance (being a bit more competent at ball striking) can jump up and inflate scores in ways I never would have predicted. And layer upon layer ... or not ... I think this point was already discussed. Some might seek to minimize and manage this complexity in favour of stability and progression, others might embrace it with the long term view of working through it to the next level with the knowledge that some interim setbacks and pain might be involved. Or a bit of a mixture of both approaches at times. If it matters I have had indexes from sub 9 to 20 plus. But like I said earlier it is just a number and at present the number says I am a bogey golfer, typical bogey golfer ... eh I do not know, for my part if feels typical yea.

Every course/person interaction is going to be unique to that pairing. If a courses stronger elements match up with a golfers stronger skills, then in theory might be easier playing from a bit further back. And the opposite holds true even thought the course overall appears easier if the heart of the courses strength is in an area where a particular golfer is relatively weaker it might be prudent to consider moving up. My personal goal is to be comfortable, hit some quality golf shots, and enjoy the round. I do not care about score at all, however if I do all those things the score will just naturally take care of itself. Being comfortable to me means having the "potential" (25% or better chance) of being 160 or less in on every par four with a clear view of the green, fairway or rough doesn't matter. However, someone else might only care about the ultimate score, or their differential, or just being out in the sun for a walk, or ... This year I have played from 5200 because everyone else was playing there (shot 81) and from 6800 playing by myself as a single because I thought it was the best match for my game (shot 83). I just do not think there can be any formula that is going to work very well. Guidelines on the other hand probably are useful if the course has a recommendation for tees based on something valid. Fully understanding that guidelines are just that guides and will not apply to everyone or perfectly to anyone. Ultimately I just want to enjoy myself which is what it seems like everyone is ultimately saying ... in one way or another.

I've never used a bogey rating except maybe indirectly and unknowingly. I just saw that blurb in the link CR McDivot posted and thought it was interesting the USGA presented it as the most important number for a bogey golfer. My comment was more like in a perfect world I would like a rating, slope, and scorecard and/or yardage book to make a decision. The specific example I had in mind was 5700 white and 6100 blue (the course only had red, white, and blue tees) but the blue tees had a rating of 71.4 and slope of 151 and par was only 70 so I want to play the white. In a case where yardage does matter, I care more about how it is distributed than the total number which is why I like to look at a scorecard. If it is mostly in long par three and five holes then I don't care. If it is mostly in long par fours (long to me) I would want to move to a shorter tee. Sometimes if it is only one hole that is excessively long the group will agree to just move up on that one hole. Target, I don't have a target except to be comfortable which usually means finding some balance between the three numbers. I would ideally want a 10 over par score to also be close to a differential of 10 but that is not always practical. However it does seems to be comfortable spot to play from for a lot of courses I have tried. For example one of the last rounds I posted 81 resulting in a 13.5 differential, which suggests I might want to look into playing from a more difficult tee next time.

Quote: Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon Good to know, cheers. :) Basically it's exactly the same concept in that the ball cannot come off the face faster than X measurement but it's just being measured in a different way? I don't know so I'm going to say yes basically the same even though I might have other opinions (full of opinions). But since I don't actually KNOW anything different ... yes. Tom Wishon made this comment once. Quote: Admittedly it does seem suspicious. But in defense of the USGA/R&A;, we have yet to see a driver head that does not correspond between CT and COR. So it apparently is viable for doing face conformity rulings for driver heads.

The USGA no longer uses COR, the new measurement is CT, the units are time. The magic number is now 257 (or 239). The characteristic time of the clubhead shall not be greater than 239 μs. A maximum test tolerance of 18 μs is associated with this test. CT is mentioned in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v;=_zjFcyQPpBg#t=30

Quote: Originally Posted by Meltdwhiskey I'd be interested to hear from the bogey gallery which tees you play from. So many courses set it up different ways, so I'll make up a set. Which one would be you: Red : Ladies Tees - 5300 yards White : Mens Tees - 6000 yards Blue : Chanpionship Tees - 6600 yards Black : The Tips - 7000 yards Does not appear that you have provided enough information to make an informed decision. Not that it really matters I tend to play from whatever tees everyone else plays but I would likely balk at playing the tips. Quote: Bogey Rating the one number every golfer worse than a scratch should check before deciding which tees to play. This rating is the evaluation of the playing difficulty of a course for the bogey golfer. It is based on yardage, effective playing length and other obstacles to the extent that affect the scoring ability of the bogey golfer. To figure out this number, other than from looking at this database, the bogey golfer should take the Slope Rating®, divide it by the set factor (5.381 for men, and 4.24 for women) and add that to the Course Rating. The result is a target score for the bogey golfer, and is a truer yardstick of the challenge that lies ahead for the particular set of tees. Quote: Originally Posted by CR McDivot Whites or Blues, depending on the course's Bogey Rating and my prior experience. ... I find the Bogey Rating more useful than the Course Rating (typical scratch player's expected score) or the Slope Rating (difficulty of a course for players who are not scratch golfers, compared to scratch golfers). CR, I copied the quoted text above from the link you cited and added the red emphasis to the text. If you don't have a bogey rating it is fairly easy to get: bogey rating = slope/5.381 + course rating or divide by 4.24 for women. That is just a rehash of the red text (hopefully correctly :)

88 at home, not interesting. What was interesting was one of the guys in the group made a hole in one, his first in 40 years of trying. I didn't get to see it in person as he was playing in the foursome ahead of mine but it was a really fun time celebrating his achievement.

I have a slightly different take on rating and slope relative to HCI. I'm not going to comment on course HC because that is a completely separate issue and quite frankly I know exactly the same as you, used in calculating CHC. Between the two numbers the course rating is the only number of interest to the scratch golfer and the slope rating is the primary number of interest for a less skilled golfer (strictly in terms of HCI). I'll slightly modify your example to illustrate this using some mathematics. For example......what if I score 75 on 2 courses...... 75CR 125 slope 75CR 145 slope....... Will the differential be different? No exactly the same regardless of what slope rating is chosen in fact. The closer one gets to scratch the progressively less important slope is to the calculation, culminating in the ultimate case of being exactly scratch. (75 - 75) * 113/125 = 0 (75 - 75) * 113/145 = 0 Changing the example again to illustrate the less skilled case. For example......what if I score 105 on 2 courses...... 75CR 125 slope 75CR 145 slope....... Will the differential be different? (105 - 75) * 113/125 = 27.1 (105 - 75) * 113/145 = 23.4 Very definitely yes, where the scratch player saw zero difference (differential) between the score he shot and the result adjusted by the formula, this player sees 3.7 strokes difference between courses and 6.6 strokes total difference from the actual score shot in the 145 slope case. To illustrate that 6.6 stroke difference I need to introduce another special case, the standard difficulty course. For a slope of 113 players of all handicaps will find the course plays to exactly the same difficulty. For example on a course rated 75 CR and 113 SR what are the differentials for scores of 75 and 105? (75 - 75) * 113/113 = 0 (105 - 75) * 113/113 = 30, or (105 -75) * 1 = 30, and finally just (105 - 75) = 30 And in fact it is clear that the slope rating can be left out entirely, the differential is purely based on the score shot relative to the course rating. In summary the closer to scratch the less important SR, the further from scratch the progressively more important SR becomes (strictly in terms of HCI calculations anyway). Everything in between is a sliding scale. The official statement on SR describes the same thing but for whatever reason I don't find it particularly clear, but it might make the light shine for someone else. Quote: A "Slope Rating" is the USGA's mark that indicates the measurement of the relative difficulty of a course for players who are not scratch golfers compared to the USGA Course Rating (e.g., compared to the difficulty of a course for scratch golfers).

Tom Wishon posted some great info on this general topic here . I thought the rest of the thread was worth reading too.

Atkinson CC in NH. Reviews were from here but only the two I cited were recent. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Atkinson is ideal, if I wanted I suppose I could find negative things to say about Atkinson, I just don't think it's called for ... glass houses, stones and such ... Good for you! I can't seem to find the right words, tone, or appropriate time to say the right things. The second time the marshal came by in the situation I cited, he actually did say if we weren't in position next time by he would have us pick up and get in position, can't repeat what guy #1 said to that.