D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
Mendie, have you looked at Game Golf and how they use the information to show strokes gained etc?
Strokes Gained - No Laying Up podcast
- Thread starter MendieGK
- Start date
MendieGK
Tour Winner
The calculator i put up is purely for putts. enter your first putt distance and how many putts. its that simple
MendieGK
Tour Winner
Yeah i've stopped using Game Golf now, but the figures are very consistent with every other app/programme i have used
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
I’ve found it useful to help focus on certain aspects or to relax and worry less about others.
IanM
Journeyman Pro
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 12,457
- Location
- Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
Stats eh Sam? There are "missed fairways" and "M I S S E D fairways!! 
pinberry
Club Champion
This means you haven't quite understood the value of Strokes Gained. As long as everyone compares to the same average, it does not matter what the average is. Sure, you average will be a lot worse than a PGA tour player on all metrics. But so will your buddies average.
The other point is, even though the average of a PGA tour player is out of reach for all of us, you can still draw conclusions on your game. Mark Broadie, in his book, does a good job at presenting strokes gained stats for different playing abilities, so you have that comparison if you want.
The overall message is that the widespread myth about improving putting and short game in order to get better it's just a fairy tale. All amateurs will greatly benefit from improving their long game.
As someone said, "If you can't putt, you can't win. If you can't drive, you can't play".
nickjdavis
Head Pro
OK....
1) I'm not interested in my "budddies averages"...I couldn't care less how my game is improving/declining compared to theirs.
2) I get that, as long as I compare to a common baseline, then I can track my ongoing progress....but knowing that I'm losing 4.7 shots on my long game to a PGA Pro is one thing....knowing WHY I'm losing 4.7 shots is something totally different. I don't know that the shots gained system can give me this direct insight without drilling down into the raw statistical shot yardage/accuracy data that I already personally use. I'll admit that I wasn't aware that there were "shots gained" stats available for a variety of handicap categories....but then I'm guessing that these are based on US handicaps and the relevance of the US handicap to a UK handicap is something for discussion elsewhere!!!
3)When you say "long game"....do you mean with driver off the tee???...or do you mean from 140 yards to 180yards out....i.e. mid/long iron/hybrid/fairway play??? I cant see that improving your drives from 230yds to 250 yds will significantly reduce scores (unless you are totally wild off the tee) compared with improving your approach accuracy from 140-180yds. Of course a lot of this is dependent upon the courses that you play most frequently.....there are 5 par 3's at my place so improving my driving wont help improve my scores on any of them and there are another 4 holes where the layout dictates that driver is not perhaps the best club to hit!! Effectively I have 9 holes at most where improvements in my driving play will lead to improved scores.
4)I cant agree with dismissing improving your short game as a means of improving your scores, simply as a "fairy tale". With regards putting....I think a significant number of golfers would reduce scores easily with better distance control....its not hard with a bit of practice...and the amount of players I see knock the ball 30,40 50 yards further down the fairway than me and then thin their approach 50 yards through the green, leads me to conclude that a lot of them would benefit from improving their short game.
My own use of stats is largely based around the philosophy of....
1) you cant putt the ball in the holes unless your ball is on the green and close,
2) you cant get the ball on the green and close unless your approach play is good
3) your tee shot should not put you in a position where it hinders you from hitting the green.
So effectively there comes a time when your shots with your driver are "good enough" and it becomes necessary to focus on other aspects of your game.
Last edited:
Wabinez
Journeyman Pro
Have you listened to the podcast? It would probably be better to hear it from Broadie himself. I listened to it today, and it was fascinating. Ultimately, Broadie was asked where amateurs should look to improve, and his answer was approach shots from 150 yards and in. If you knock them closer, then it puts you in a better position.
The podcast is definitely worth dedicating 60minutes to.
As a side, I believe Golfshake are looking at how to incorporate strokes gained as a stat that is available to view. They certainly have the data available to them to draw comparisons
chimpo1
Assistant Pro
If you are contributing to this thread then I recommend you read the book. It clearly states, and Broadie repeats this in the podcast that distance is the key to lower scores. Getting the ball closer to the hole from every shot, tee, approach, short is the key. Stats show that being 30 yards closer to the hole in the rough is better than being 50 yards away in the middle of the fairway for example. That is why the PGA tour is filled with bombers and luke Donald cannot compete anymore.
D
Deleted Member 1156
Guest
That might be the case on tour style courses but it certainly wouldn't work round my home course. If you miss the fairway it is shortest route back to the fairway out of the heather.
nickjdavis
Head Pro
This I can agree with. But you still can't knock it close out off deep rough or from behind a tree. Once you can hit the ball 200yds on the short stuff and can limit your three putts to maybe 1 a round then yes... improving your approach play will reap huge benefits.
I'll contribute to this thread weather I've read the book or not thank you - you are free to ignore what I say. I will still contend that the amateur golfers that I see day in day out at my club would score a lot better by being 10 yards shorter and ten yards closer to the middle of the fairway. They would improve scores far more by developing their course management than hitting the ball 20 yards further. They would knock shots off in no time if they could control distance with the putter better. Get them hitting the ball ten yards further and five yards more wayward and the only thing that will improve is the players knowledge of different tree types!!
I'm guessing that the better player you are the more likely you are to be able to recover from a wayward shot, so the pros/elite amateurs can be as wayward as they want in the knowledge that they have the technique, strength etc. to overcome the more difficult lies they might experience and still find the greens. In this scenario then I can see that "longer is better". But the amateur golfer cant gouge as well as the tour bombers.
MendieGK
Tour Winner
Come on, this isn’t true. Broadstone has rough. It might be only a small amount but it does not go a fairway straight to heather!!
Wilson
Head Pro
I thought the podcast was very interesting, and I’m going to get a copy of the book to read whilst on holiday, I’ve also downloaded the Taylormade App, and will start noting distances whilst I play, and complete retrospectively.
All very interesting.
All very interesting.
chrisd
Major Champion
I ordered Shot Scope v2 yesterday so that I can get my stats. They have what they call 'shots to finish' which they say is their version of shots gained. I'll be interested how this works for me as I definitely prefer distance over safety as an aim off the tee. If anyone has this device perhaps you could post how it works for you.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
And in addition to that, hitting the ball 200 yards out of the rough doesn't phase your average pro tour golfer, but for someone like me with not the fastest swing in the world, a poor lie in the rough can kill all hope of hitting it a good distance.
turkish
Journeyman Pro
Let me know how you get on with it- I bought arcoss as Shotscope didn't have great analytics at the time but I understand they have changed this- they also claim to have more accurate putter readings
chrisd
Major Champion
Will do
nickjdavis
Head Pro
The new Shotscope stats are a significant improvement over the old. I've had Shotscope since v1 was released but stopped using it because the stats dashboard just didn't deliver the data and the means of manipulating it, that I really wanted. I upgraded to v2 due to the promise of a major improvement and am happy to say that the data now delivers everything I wanted.
I can now at the click of a button see my approach accuracy from any selected range of yardages between 50 and 350 yards. I can subdivide this between shots played from fairway/rough/bunkers. I can do exactly the same for short game shots played from within 50 yards. I can see how many shots it takes "to finish" from any selectable range of yardage
I know know exactly how far away from the hole my first putt finishes based on how far away the putt was taken from and I know typically how many shots it takes me to finish from any given putting distance as well as my "make percentages" from various distances.
If folks have previously rejected ShotScope due to the available analytics then I think it would be a good idea to revisit just to see if the changes give you what you want.
pinberry
Club Champion
1) fair enough
2) Broadie, in his book, will tell you that 65% of the 4.7 shots you lose are due to long game, which includes everything. Drivers, iron play etc.
3) I mean everything. Although people think of driving and approach as two different things, in reality they are not. The quality of your long game is dictated by the quality of your swing. The only difference might be lenght, where hitting long drivers comes at a premium. But if you swing well, your driving will improve and so will your approach game (from 100yds out)
4) I think you should agree with me. First, if you read Broadie's book, it'll all make sense. Second, I play off scratch and often play with guys who have a 10hcp. Although I tend to putt better than they do, the difference is not massive. However, when it comes to hitting golf shots, it's two different planets. Yet, by the end of the round, the usual comment revolves around my ability to get up and down when I miss the green and how they need to improve in that respect. Wrong! Yes, my short game is better, but my long game is even better compared to theirs. But the reality is, it takes a lot more effort to improve one's long game than spending 30 mins on the putting green. A 90 golfer, if putts to a scratch level, might turn into a 87 golfer. A 90 golfer, if he keeps his putting but strikes to ball to scratch level, will turn into a 75 golfer.
Mind you, I'm not saying that short game and putting should be disregarded, not at all. But most amateurs, after they plateu, they never ever work on their long game and will mostly focus on putting and short game. Ideally, you should allocate at least 60/70% of your practice time to the long game.
nickjdavis
Head Pro
That's a well reasoned response for which I thank you. With regards point 4....as you say, it takes a lot more effort to improve the long game than it does to improve ones putting....on this we both agree....but the point I would make from the view of the real world amateur golfer who has a vast range of other commitments who may not have the time to spend hours practicing the long game is.....surely it is better to focus what little time you've got into areas where you can make "easy gains"....to grab those three or four shots a round that might be lost due to bad putting?
I understand what the stats say....I'm just trying to practically apply how such information can be utilized by the average amateur into making ,what for a significant percentage of them is going to be a limited opportunity, their practice as useful as possible. Its far easier to spend 15 minutes a night rolling putts on the living room carpet to the cat than it is to get down the range once a week for an hour.
BTW I really smiled at the "I think you should agree with me" phrase....a far better way of saying "you don't know what you are talking about" than telling me not to contribute if I haven't read a book!!!
