Strokes Gained, kind of!

Well, I made it to the end and even reread a few bits.

Short version; course management. Plot your way around staying away from hazards/areas that cost you shots, ergo gain a shot by not dropping shots where you usually would.

For all the lengthy prose, at least the author acknowledges that different players, even those with the same handicap, will play a hole differently. It might be one has a great long game whilst another might be off the same h’cap because of a stellar short game. That for me is where the article contradicts itself. It’s very difficult to create generic strategies for a specific hole when both handicaps and playing strengths affect the outcome.

If I were to critique the article, bluntly, stop using 20 words when 10 will do. The age old, “if you don’t grip your audience in the first 5 minutes you lose them.” The posts above say exactly that.
 
Hobbit said:
Well, I made it to the end and even reread a few bits.

Short version; course management. Plot your way around staying away from hazards/areas that cost you shots, ergo gain a shot by not dropping shots where you usually would.

For all the lengthy prose, at least the author acknowledges that different players, even those with the same handicap, will play a hole differently. It might be one has a great long game whilst another might be off the same h’cap because of a stellar short game. That for me is where the article contradicts itself. It’s very difficult to create generic strategies for a specific hole when both handicaps and playing strengths affect the outcome.

If I were to critique the article, bluntly, stop using 20 words when 10 will do. The age old, “if you don’t grip your audience in the first 5 minutes you lose them.” The posts above say exactly that.
Click to expand...
Who would have thought that staying out of hazards and trees and stuff will mean you score better? And there was most of us aiming at the water and hoping for a lucky birdie :ROFLMAO:
 
They’re already struggling for computational power, haven’t even added trees into their model which will exponentially increase complexity. Despite what they think, their maps are not all that clear and give little data beyond the fact that hazards are bad and closer to the hole is better, which we knew already.

If they could forget the idea that it’s an architectural tool and instead refine and alter it to a ‘fairway heat map’ showing most productive areas to approach from, rather than attempt to map the entire course then it would be more interesting and useful. Nobody needs a strokes gained map to aim away from the pond…
 
The Squirrel said:
They’re already struggling for computational power, haven’t even added trees into their model which will exponentially increase complexity. Despite what they think, their maps are not all that clear and give little data beyond the fact that hazards are bad and closer to the hole is better, which we knew already.

If they could forget the idea that it’s an architectural tool and instead refine and alter it to a ‘fairway heat map’ showing most productive areas to approach from, rather than attempt to map the entire course then it would be more interesting and useful. Nobody needs a strokes gained map to aim away from the pond…
Click to expand...

You’ve only got to look at a detailed course planner that a pro might use to know what should be hit off the tee and to where. Rinse & repeat for subsequent shots.

Once we’ve played our home course a few times we know exactly what we need to do where and under what circumstances. I never really understand why we need to over complicate things to the extent we do. The mark 1 eyeball sees what’s in front of us, and we make our decisions based on the information we have - one small example; when I’m stood on a par 4 tee I look to see what side of the green the flag is on then consider what side of the fairway gives me the best way in. Hazards etc are then considered. I plan from the green back to the tee.
 
I made it three quarters of the way through before skimming the last few pages.

My main conclusion would be that, the closer to the end of the article you get, the more of a stats nerd/geek you might be considered.
 
Ik quit reading after this sentence:

"My frustration was clear: where is the room for strategic architecture in a theory where only distance matters."

I have never ever heard anyone serious about strokes gained golf strategy claim that 'only distance matters'. Of course it's about playing to smart targets, avoiding penalties etc...
 
nickjdavis said:
I made it three quarters of the way through before skimming the last few pages.

My main conclusion would be that, the closer to the end of the article you get, the more of a stats nerd/geek you might be considered.
Click to expand...

I think he reaches the point of paralysis by analysis, and (almost) looks to frame the conclusion before the analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top