The great drive for dough putt for show debate thread.

[bobmac]

What does that 6% equate to? 1 extra missed fairway. 2 at the most. Hardly a disaster.

Fitzpatrick is the poster boy for gaining distance. He was the laughing stock at the Ryder cup because he was so short he struggled to reach the last in 2.

Sunshine suggested MF extra distance had no affect on his dispersion.
The stats show that's not true as he is now hitting fewer fairways.

 

[Backsticks]

Sunshine suggested MF extra distance had no affect on his dispersion.
The stats show that's not true as he is now hitting less fairways.

A single example of how distance gain, even with increased dispersion improves scores, although the very tight band of world class pros is not really the place to look for insight. But nevertheless, it is a case of dispersion is not the evil some mistake it for.

 

[Neilds]

A single example of how distance gain, even with increased dispersion improves scores, although the very tight band of world class pros is not really the place to look for insight. But nevertheless, it is a case of dispersion is not the evil some mistake it for.

It hasn't improved his scoring in the 1st round of the USPGA

 

[bobmac]

A single example of how distance gain, even with increased dispersion improves scores, although the very tight band of world class pros is not really the place to look for insight. But nevertheless, it is a case of dispersion is not the evil some mistake it for.

The stats show MF is hitting fewer fairways, leaving him further from the hole in 2. But that's ok because he's hitting it further.
The point is if the best players in the world aren't able to increase their speed without missing more fairways, what hope do club golfers have.

 

[Backsticks]

The stats show MF is hitting fewer fairways, leaving him further from the hole in 2. But that's ok because he's hitting it further.
The point is if the best players in the world aren't able to increase their speed without missing more fairways, what hope do club golfers have.

The hope of hitting it further, while missing more fairways, yet understanding that they will neverthless play better golf as a result. It isnt that complex a concept.

 

[bobmac]

The hope of hitting it further, while missing more fairways, yet understanding that they will neverthless play better golf as a result. It isnt that complex a concept.

So the best in the world increased his length by 18 yards and he is now 4 shots worse off per tournament.
If you think that's playing better golf I'm done.

 

[Springveldt]

The average golfer [?] will probably hit 12/14 drives and 35/37 putts.
Logic says work on your putting.

How many of those putts are inconsequential tap ins? How many are from over 10 foot? How many are in the 5-10 foot range that are realistically holeable and do make a difference to your score?

Also the average golfer, even if he increases his length by 10 or 20 yards, will still miss half the greens in regulation, so improving his chipping might be a good idea too.

if your are 20 yards longer off the tee you will be closer to the green and be using 2 clubs less (possibly even 3 with your new found distance) and will hit more greens.

 

[TheDiablo]

Matt Fitzpatrick 2018
Driving distance 287.9 yds accuracy 66.06 %

2022-2023
Driving distance 305.1 yds accuracy 60.12 %

So his 17 yard gain has meant he is hitting 6.4% less fairways and his proximity to the hole has increased from 35.7ft to 41.4ft

Or, using stats that actually matter to his score and this debate rather than a relatively meaningless one in driving accuracy

MF Strokes gained T2G 2018: 0.33
MF Strokes gained T2G 2022: 1.07

So a difference of 3 shots per tournament, purely because he increased his speed. That's what has taken him from Top 50 to Top 10 in the world.

 

[Springveldt]

Because if you can't hole a putt over 5 feet, what difference does it make being 10 feet or 15 feet from the hole.

For the stat lovers...

Rory Mcllroy 2013
Driving distance....310yds 3rd on the PGA tour
Driving accuracy ...108th on the PGA tour 59.93%
GIR...6th on the PGA tour 69.44%
Proximity to the hole 34.4 feet 31st on the PGA tour
And lastly, scoring average 69.27 1st on the PGA tour

Rory Mcllroy 2023
Driving distance....328yds 1st on the PGA tour
Driving accuracy ...193th on the PGA tour 50.89%
GIR...172nd on the PGA tour 62.96%
Proximity to the hole 38.2 feet 81st on the PGA tour
Scoring average 70.38 90th on the PGA tour.

So Rory gained 18 yards in 10 years
His accuracy dropped from 59.93% to 50.89% of fairways hit and lost 85 places on tour
And being 18 yards closer meant his GIR dropped from 69.44% to 62.96 and lost 166 places on tour.
His proximity to the hole worsened from 34.4 feet to 38.2 and 50 places on tour.
And his average scores increased by 4 shots per tournament.
If he had been 4 shots better at the 2022 Open Championship, he would have won it by 2
So his 18 yard improvement cost him last year's Open

So even the best in the world can't control a 1.8 yard annual increase in length.

Based on the last 10 years of data.
No old wives were consulted.



Matt Fitzpatrick 2018
Driving distance 287.9 yds accuracy 66.06 %

2022-2023
Driving distance 305.1 yds accuracy 60.12 %

So his 17 yard gain has meant he is hitting 6.4% less fairways and his proximity to the hole has increased from 35.7ft to 41.4ft

Rory has had a poor start to his season by his standards though. How about last season? 2nd driving distance, first strokes gained tee to green but way down in driving accuracy.

View attachment 47792

 

[bobmac]

Or, using stats that actually matter to his score and this debate rather than a relatively meaningless one in driving accuracy

I disagree.

Sunshine said

''I bet his dispersion has not increased.''

I proved he is now missing more fairways so his dispersion has increased

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Sunshine said

''I bet his dispersion has not increased.''

I proved he is now missing more fairways so his dispersion has increased

how do you know his dispersion has increased because he’s missing more fairways? It could conceivably have reduced but he has changed where he is aiming.

 

[Whereditgo]

I do find it amusing that to counter data gleaned from 575,000,000 strokes, people will use an example of 1 golfer.

Increasing distance for handicap golfers is not about thrashing at the ball, it’s an increase in swing speed so that your normal full swing feels exactly the same as it did but the clubhead is moving faster, therefore there is no deterioration in impact conditions; face direction control, path and impact location remain the same.

Obviously if someone 3 or 4 putts every green then the shortest route to lowering their scores is to improve that aspect of the game. Make more of the 3 to 8 foot putts and improve lag putting. Similarly if someone is awful at chipping and either duffs or blades every other chip, then developing a reliable chipping technique would be the quickest way to reduce their score.

What the data does show is that statistically the biggest limiting factor on handicap potential for most golfers is distance.

Fawcett and Broadie have demonstrated that fairways in regulation is not a particularly useful benchmark, a successful tee shot is one that avoids trouble, is around 90% of your average distance and leaves you with the opportunity to progress the ball towards the hole unhindered.

 

[Backsticks]

I do find it amusing that to counter data gleaned from 575,000,000 strokes, people will use an example of 1 golfer.

Increasing distance for handicap golfers is not about thrashing at the ball, it’s an increase in swing speed so that your normal full swing feels exactly the same as it did but the clubhead is moving faster, therefore there is no deterioration in impact conditions; face direction control, path and impact location remain the same.

Obviously if someone 3 or 4 putts every green then the shortest route to lowering their scores is to improve that aspect of the game. Make more of the 3 to 8 foot putts and improve lag putting. Similarly if someone is awful at chipping and either duffs or blades every other chip, then developing a reliable chipping technique would be the quickest way to reduce their score.

What the data does show is that statistically the biggest limiting factor on handicap potential for most golfers is distance.

Fawcett and Broadie have demonstrated that fairways in regulation is not a particularly useful benchmark, a successful tee shot is one that avoids trouble, is around 90% of your average distance and leaves you with the opportunity to progress the ball towards the hole unhindered.

True. And often, aiming for an increased probability of a drive ending up in the rough can help that, and lower your score. FIRs can be, and for most hc golfers, are, detrimental to their score.

 

[bobmac]

how do you know his dispersion has increased because he’s missing more fairways? It could conceivably have reduced but he has changed where he is aiming.

You're right, and if my aunty had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

FIRs can be, and for most hc golfers, are, detrimental to their score.

I'm out

 

[Deleted member 1147]

True. And often, aiming for an increased probability of a drive ending up in the rough can help that, and lower your score. FIRs can be, and for most hc golfers, are, detrimental to their score.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

True. And often, aiming for an increased probability of a drive ending up in the rough can help that, and lower your score. FIRs can be, and for most hc golfers, are, detrimental to their score.

You on a wind up

 

[clubchamp98]

True. And often, aiming for an increased probability of a drive ending up in the rough can help that, and lower your score. FIRs can be, and for most hc golfers, are, detrimental to their score.

Yes I often wish I was in the rough instead of on the fairway.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Seems to me that the ‘show’ aspect of ‘drive for show’ is generally couched in terms of distance, with accuracy a supplementary statistic, when the ‘show’ aspect could equally be couched in terms of accuracy, with distance the supplementary.

Why is it distance that is ‘showy’ rather than accuracy…maybe it’s simply that many golfers have a ‘look at me’ obsession with distance, and that these golfers consider ‘accuracy’ to be for the boring.

 

[Backsticks]

Yes I often wish I was in the rough instead of on the fairway.

Yes, Scott Fawcett is a good place to start on this, and his Decade app, though I dont know anyone who has tried it. The principle is how all elite golfer play today, though it does need some appreciation of statistics and an understanding of strokes gained rather than the older, borderline useless measures as guides to improvement, such and GIRs, and FIRs. That method essentially calculates a best club and aim line for every shot, based on loong/short, left/right dispersion and the character of the target area.

The flaw in the old, simplistic view of aiming to maximise GIRs as in themselves a good thing, is usually explained by an example such as a hole with water or bunker cluster in the teeshot landing zone off the right of the fairway. In this case, FIRs can be maximised by aiming down the middle, or middle of ones dispersion. But that takes no account of the price paid for the - high number - of shots that will miss the fairway. A better strategy to optimise your score, which is the goal rather than arbitrary measures such as FIRs, is to aim for the left edge of the fairway. So half the shots only will land in the fairway - and half in the rough. But that is better and insures against the shots that would end up in the water by aiming down the middle, even if more shots would end on the fairway. Its just a further extension of the longer in the rough can be better than shorter in the fairway. So your strategy specifically guides you towards reducing FIRS...but reducing your score.

 

[D-S]

Yes, Scott Fawcett is a good place to start on this, and his Decade app, though I dont know anyone who has tried it. The principle is how all elite golfer play today, though it does need some appreciation of statistics and an understanding of strokes gained rather than the older, borderline useless measures as guides to improvement, such and GIRs, and FIRs. That method essentially calculates a best club and aim line for every shot, based on loong/short, left/right dispersion and the character of the target area.

The flaw in the old, simplistic view of aiming to maximise GIRs as in themselves a good thing, is usually explained by an example such as a hole with water or bunker cluster in the teeshot landing zone off the right of the fairway. In this case, FIRs can be maximised by aiming down the middle, or middle of ones dispersion. But that takes no account of the price paid for the - high number - of shots that will miss the fairway. A better strategy to optimise your score, which is the goal rather than arbitrary measures such as FIRs, is to aim for the left edge of the fairway. So half the shots only will land in the fairway - and half in the rough. But that is better and insures against the shots that would end up in the water by aiming down the middle, even if more shots would end on the fairway. Its just a further extension of the longer in the rough can be better than shorter in the fairway. So your strategy specifically guides you towards reducing FIRS...but reducing your score.

I understand that, in simplistic terms, there is often a ‘good miss‘ on holes and it is better to flirt with rough rather than deep bunkers or water, but how many holes per round is such a strategy needed?