What’s your favourite layup distance?

[r0wly86]

Extrapolate what?
Fairway shots from 50 to 75 are always nearer than 75 to 100.
Less than 50 and your in to scrambling territory and the stats says exactly the same thing. In the vast amount of cases Nearer is better.

You can bleat all you like about preferred distance but it's just anecdotal nonsense.

Your confusing having to lay up with general play.

You can say that as a simple statistical analysis, but anyone who does stat analysis, which I do, will NEVER just take the simple stats and extrapolate a simple maxim.

Whenever I am creating stat reports there has to be qualitative data to explain the data. 40 yards away, you have no idea where the pin is, what the greens are like, are they hitting from fairway, semi or thick rough. How many shots hit. From 100 yards away there is a good chance that is a tee shot, so more of a chance that the ball is in the rough etc. Do you see how pure stats do not give a full picture.

The other point is if the pin is at the back and the pro knows that then he may well want to get as close as possible as he knows he has plenty of green to work with and roll up. It is unlikely that the pros are that distance by accident. The question would be how often they hit it to 30-40 yards and how often they hit it to 100.

It is not anecdotal nonsense, it is qualitative data. If every pro says given the choice they want to be 100 yards out rather than 30, then that says something very important about your stats that must be read alongside them. You cannot ignore qualitative data just because you have some statistical data.

To borrow from 30 Rock.

A cardiologist may have 100 people die on the operating table out of 1000, where as a dentist only 1 out of 1000.

Statistically the dentist is the safest person to get surgery from.

But obviously we would read qualitatively that the heart surgeon is doing far riskier operation on people with a greater chance of dying in the first place

 

[robinthehood]

You can say that as a simple statistical analysis, but anyone who does stat analysis, which I do, will NEVER just take the simple stats and extrapolate a simple maxim.

Whenever I am creating stat reports there has to be qualitative data to explain the data. 40 yards away, you have no idea where the pin is, what the greens are like, are they hitting from fairway, semi or thick rough. How many shots hit. From 100 yards away there is a good chance that is a tee shot, so more of a chance that the ball is in the rough etc. Do you see how pure stats do not give a full picture.

The other point is if the pin is at the back and the pro knows that then he may well want to get as close as possible as he knows he has plenty of green to work with and roll up. It is unlikely that the pros are that distance by accident. The question would be how often they hit it to 30-40 yards and how often they hit it to 100.

It is not anecdotal nonsense, it is qualitative data. If every pro says given the choice they want to be 100 yards out rather than 30, then that says something very important about your stats that must be read alongside them. You cannot ignore qualitative data just because you have some statistical data.

To borrow from 30 Rock.

A cardiologist may have 100 people die on the operating table out of 1000, where as a dentist only 1 out of 1000.

Statistically the dentist is the safest person to get surgery from.

But obviously we would read qualitatively that the heart surgeon is doing far riskier operation on people with a greater chance of dying in the first place

Its all on the pga website, go and read it your self. The amount of stats is staggering and the break down very impressive. No amount of saying qualitative changes what they are saying

 

[Capella]

For me - whatever distance brings a putt into play as a sensible option . And I suspect that most medium and above handicap players who might claim any other distance know in their hearts that really that is what they should be aiming for.

I think, nobody would debate that. If you can reach the green or a puttable region in front of the green without pulling a major stunt, there is no reason to lay up. But I find myself quite often in a position where I cannot reach the green or could only do so with a perfectly straigt 3 wood which I maneuver through a 5 yard gap between bunkers or something like that. In which case I have a choice of hitting the longest club possible (said 3 wood or as the next option my hybrid), both of which bring bunkers into play, or I can divide the distance into two sensible shots. Now, I can go for the longest iron possible which I know will stop short of the bunkers, leaving me an awkward half-pitch onto the green which is going to be hard to stop becasue I can't really get enough spin on it, or I can lay up to a full wedge or short iron shot, which at least has a chance of stopping close to where I want it to stop.

 

[robinthehood]

https://www.arccosgolf.com/blogs/co...ent-101-what-layup-yardage-is-your-sweet-spot

And then under that your in scrambling territory.

 

[r0wly86]

Its all on the pga website, go and read it your self. The amount of stats is staggering and they all say the same thing.

AGAIN, without more information, such as I have set out multiple times, the stats are largely useless to extrapolate what you have done.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You have looked at the stats and have concluded there is simple causation i.e. the closer they are to the hole the easier the shot the closer they get. But you cannot or at least should not extrapolate causation without the full facts , that is all I am saying.

Pros prefer to hit 100 yards because they can consistently spin the ball the way they want, they cannot do this under 50 yards. IF there is plenty of green then they can switch from an aggressive pitch shot to a chip shot that releases.

If the pin was at the front, I doubt they would want to be 30-40 yards away as they will struggle to spin and stop the ball close to the pin, if the pins at the back they may prefer to run the ball up as the safer option. The pros will have all this information on the tee and they will discuss with the caddy the best way to get close to the hole, they are not just hitting as long as possible to get as close as possible then deciding what to do, like us amateurs often do.

It is all dependent on the circumstances of the shot, which the stats do not give you.

I am not saying being 100 yards or whatever away is always the best, dependent on the hole, pin placement it may be better to get as close as possible. The reason why pros like to be 100 yards out is because they know pretty much that they will be pitching and stopping within a close area of where they are aiming to land it. That will be what they are aiming for because it is repeatable. No matter what the pin position or slope of the green they know they won't be far off from where they want. Just following your stats we should and all tour pros should get as close as possible at all times, which is wrong.

Amateurs should take a page out of the pros book and look at their course management. They will plan out what they need to do to get birdie or par. If on a par 5 that is driver-3-wood get within 20 yards and run it up to the pin so be it, it may also be 3 wood-7 iron- and a GW from 100 yards. I have definitely seen pros do that.

Looking at what tour pros do, is not anecdotal evidence, as far as is possible to say in the golf they are the experts. What the experts do in any field should always be taken into account

 

[TheDiablo]

AGAIN, without more information, such as I have set out multiple times, the stats are largely useless to extrapolate what you have done.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You have looked at the stats and have concluded there is simple causation i.e. the closer they are to the hole the easier the shot the closer they get. But you cannot or at least should not extrapolate causation without the full facts , that is all I am saying.

Pros prefer to hit 100 yards because they can consistently spin the ball the way they want, they cannot do this under 50 yards. IF there is plenty of green then they can switch from an aggressive pitch shot to a chip shot that releases.

If the pin was at the front, I doubt they would want to be 30-40 yards away as they will struggle to spin and stop the ball close to the pin, if the pins at the back they may prefer to run the ball up as the safer option. The pros will have all this information on the tee and they will discuss with the caddy the best way to get close to the hole, they are not just hitting as long as possible to get as close as possible then deciding what to do, like us amateurs often do.

It is all dependent on the circumstances of the shot, which the stats do not give you.

I am not saying being 100 yards or whatever away is always the best, dependent on the hole, pin placement it may be better to get as close as possible. The reason why pros like to be 100 yards out is because they know pretty much that they will be pitching and stopping within a close area of where they are aiming to land it. That will be what they are aiming for because it is repeatable. No matter what the pin position or slope of the green they know they won't be far off from where they want. Just following your stats we should and all tour pros should get as close as possible at all times, which is wrong.

Amateurs should take a page out of the pros book and look at their course management. They will plan out what they need to do to get birdie or par. If on a par 5 that is driver-3-wood get within 20 yards and run it up to the pin so be it, it may also be 3 wood-7 iron- and a GW from 100 yards. I have definitely seen pros do that.

Looking at what tour pros do, is not anecdotal evidence, as far as is possible to say in the golf they are the experts. What the experts do in any field should always be taken into account

The sheer volume of shots recorded means there is no need for qualitative analysis as the sample is large enough. Year on year, player on player, tour on tour on all type of courses show the same result.

Most tour players now try and get it as close to the hole as is safe with every shot.

The notion of a favourite lay up distance is largely gone from tour since this data has become widely available.

Generally speaking, closer is better. It really is a simple as that.

 

[MendieGK]

AGAIN, without more information, such as I have set out multiple times, the stats are largely useless to extrapolate what you have done.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You have looked at the stats and have concluded there is simple causation i.e. the closer they are to the hole the easier the shot the closer they get. But you cannot or at least should not extrapolate causation without the full facts , that is all I am saying.

Pros prefer to hit 100 yards because they can consistently spin the ball the way they want, they cannot do this under 50 yards. IF there is plenty of green then they can switch from an aggressive pitch shot to a chip shot that releases.

If the pin was at the front, I doubt they would want to be 30-40 yards away as they will struggle to spin and stop the ball close to the pin, if the pins at the back they may prefer to run the ball up as the safer option. The pros will have all this information on the tee and they will discuss with the caddy the best way to get close to the hole, they are not just hitting as long as possible to get as close as possible then deciding what to do, like us amateurs often do.

It is all dependent on the circumstances of the shot, which the stats do not give you.

I am not saying being 100 yards or whatever away is always the best, dependent on the hole, pin placement it may be better to get as close as possible. The reason why pros like to be 100 yards out is because they know pretty much that they will be pitching and stopping within a close area of where they are aiming to land it. That will be what they are aiming for because it is repeatable. No matter what the pin position or slope of the green they know they won't be far off from where they want. Just following your stats we should and all tour pros should get as close as possible at all times, which is wrong.

Amateurs should take a page out of the pros book and look at their course management. They will plan out what they need to do to get birdie or par. If on a par 5 that is driver-3-wood get within 20 yards and run it up to the pin so be it, it may also be 3 wood-7 iron- and a GW from 100 yards. I have definitely seen pros do that.

Looking at what tour pros do, is not anecdotal evidence, as far as is possible to say in the golf they are the experts. What the experts do in any field should always be taken into account

I think you’re making yourself look a bit silly by trying to be extra smart.

I 100% guarantee you if we put 10 amateur golfers of different handicap levels, from a variety of lies and distances (just to appease you and your parameters point), on average the closer you are the closer proximity to pin would be

Pros lay up to a certain yardage because of the conditions they play in. Tight pins fast greens. That very different to anything we play on.

Oh and europro golfers are delusional. I’ve played multiple pro ams and caddied at a number of events. The green aren’t running at 12 and they aren’t running at 15. The courses they play are run of the mill members courses for the most part.

That’s why 99.9% have no future career in playing golf.

 

[r0wly86]

The sheer volume of shots recorded means there is no need for qualitative analysis as the sample is large enough. Year on year, player on player, tour on tour on all type of courses show the same result.

Most tour players now try and get it as close to the hole as is safe with every shot.

The notion of a favourite lay up distance is largely gone from tour since this data has become widely available.

Generally speaking, closer is better. It really is a simple as that.

In all seriousness, part of my job is writing reports on statistical analysis, at no point , not matter the data sample size do you ever remove the need for qualitative data to give a full picture. Any statistician worth their salt knows the importance of both and to get a full idea of what you are looking at you need both qualitative and quantitative data.

Has it largely gone, we still here the pros say they want to get it to x yards as it is their favourite distance, and earlier in this thread DJ saying if he's less than 50 then something has gone wrong. This would suggest that it hasn't gone but in fact is still used by the best players out there.

The question I would ask is shot goes into the water, pin is 3 yards from the front, water up to the green. Would a tour pro drop it at the edge of the water leaving himself 20 yards in, or would he go back to say 70 yards.

I have seen it time and time again, they would go back, from 20 yards they cannot spin the ball enough to stop, so even if the pitched it perfectly the ball would run on leaving a long putt.

This would show qualitatively that closer is not necessarily better. So right of the bat you rmaxim is killed. Which brings me back to my point is that the tour pros know exactly where everything is on the hole and know how to get close in an as few shots as possible. Perhaps we can say everything in their favour shorter is better than longer, but the point being is they are only going to hit it closer if it is in their favour to do so. If it isn't, pin on the front with danger then they will put themselves further back in order to stop the ball.

An analogy with cricket, a Yorker is statistically the delivery that will result in more batsmen being bowled. So why doesn't every fast bowler just bowl Yorkers? Because the situation dictates that they don't do it. Just like golf maybe being closer does mean you have a statistical advantage, but only in certain situations. Which is why the top players won't always be leaving themselves as little as possible

 

[IanM]

The the "more spin/less spin" point is ok, depending on the shot required. In the example last night, Rosie would have been better off further back "for the shot he needed!" Otherwise, "ceteris paribus" (ooh!) you're better off nearer....

...and the number of times I see ordinary venues proudly proclaiming "Home of the Woolies Wonder Wacker Tour" it makes me smile!

...and if Sam says he lays up to his gap wedge and that's 180 yards, I suggest a 3 day ban from the forum!

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Generally speaking, closer is better. It really is a simple as that.

I'm guessing you've never seen my chipping then?

 

[robinthehood]

In all seriousness, part of my job is writing reports on statistical analysis, at no point , not matter the data sample size do you ever remove the need for qualitative data to give a full picture. Any statistician worth their salt knows the importance of both and to get a full idea of what you are looking at you need both qualitative and quantitative data.

Has it largely gone, we still here the pros say they want to get it to x yards as it is their favourite distance, and earlier in this thread DJ saying if he's less than 50 then something has gone wrong. This would suggest that it hasn't gone but in fact is still used by the best players out there.

The question I would ask is shot goes into the water, pin is 3 yards from the front, water up to the green. Would a tour pro drop it at the edge of the water leaving himself 20 yards in, or would he go back to say 70 yards.

I have seen it time and time again, they would go back, from 20 yards they cannot spin the ball enough to stop, so even if the pitched it perfectly the ball would run on leaving a long putt.

This would show qualitatively that closer is not necessarily better. So right of the bat you rmaxim is killed. Which brings me back to my point is that the tour pros know exactly where everything is on the hole and know how to get close in an as few shots as possible. Perhaps we can say everything in their favour shorter is better than longer, but the point being is they are only going to hit it closer if it is in their favour to do so. If it isn't, pin on the front with danger then they will put themselves further back in order to stop the ball.

An analogy with cricket, a Yorker is statistically the delivery that will result in more batsmen being bowled. So why doesn't every fast bowler just bowl Yorkers? Because the situation dictates that they don't do it. Just like golf maybe being closer does mean you have a statistical advantage, but only in certain situations. Which is why the top players won't always be leaving themselves as little as possible

Oof , give it up.

Nearer = better. Agreed not in all cases.
But in most .

So many stats from so many places bare this out.
Across golf, game golf, PGA stats.


Go and look at them.

 

[MendieGK]

The the "more spin/less spin" point is ok, depending on the shot required. In the example last night, Rosie would have been better off further back "for the shot he needed!" Otherwise, "ceteris paribus" (ooh!) you're better off nearer....

...and the number of times I see ordinary venues proudly proclaiming "Home of the Woolies Wonder Wacker Tour" it makes me smile!

...and if Sam says he lays up to his gap wedge and that's 180 yards, I suggest a 3 day ban from the forum!

I haven’t laid up on a hole in years 😉

 

[r0wly86]

I think you’re making yourself look a bit silly by trying to be extra smart.

I 100% guarantee you if we put 10 amateur golfers of different handicap levels, from a variety of lies and distances (just to appease you and your parameters point), on average the closer you are the closer proximity to pin would be

Pros lay up to a certain yardage because of the conditions they play in. Tight pins fast greens. That very different to anything we play on.

Oh and europro golfers are delusional. I’ve played multiple pro ams and caddied at a number of events. The green aren’t running at 12 and they aren’t running at 15. The courses they play are run of the mill members courses for the most part.

That’s why 99.9% have no future career in playing golf.

If you think I am silly because I prefer to a whole picture rather than solely relying on statistics then I give up. I could literally reel off 100s of examples of statistics that "prove" something when we know in real life it proves nothing of the sort.

The handicap golfer is a completely different kettle of fish, I was talking about pros who diligently practice these shots. If you are asking whether an amateur who does very little practice from any distance in, then of course being closer is easer as your margin of error won't result in such big discrepencies.

For the eurotour player we was talking about last summer, specifically yon the continent, and last summer I played some bang average course that were running at 12, if a course was setting up for a pro event even a euro tour event shock horror I'm sure they could get them quicker.

You think eurotour pros should be ignored in what they say as they have no future in golf, but the handicap golfers on this forum should be trusted?

 

[robinthehood]

If you think I am silly because I prefer to a whole picture rather than solely relying on statistics then I give up. I could literally reel off 100s of examples of statistics that "prove" something when we know in real life it proves nothing of the sort.

The handicap golfer is a completely different kettle of fish, I was talking about pros who diligently practice these shots. If you are asking whether an amateur who does very little practice from any distance in, then of course being closer is easer as your margin of error won't result in such big discrepencies.

For the eurotour player we was talking about last summer, specifically yon the continent, and last summer I played some bang average course that were running at 12, if a course was setting up for a pro event even a euro tour event shock horror I'm sure they could get them quicker.

You think eurotour pros should be ignored in what they say as they have no future in golf, but the handicap golfers on this forum should be trusted?

Its not the word of a forum golfer, it 20 years of statistical analysis.....
The stats aren't a few shots from the odd tour pro...

It's thousands upon thousands upon thousands going back almost 2 decades!
I'd say as sample sizes go that's pretty damn good .

Come on, Anyonewho's played golf knows full well the closer you are to the hole the easier it is to get the next shot closer even closer than if you were further back
Mostly

 

[TheDiablo]

In all seriousness, part of my job is writing reports on statistical analysis, at no point , not matter the data sample size do you ever remove the need for qualitative data to give a full picture. Any statistician worth their salt knows the importance of both and to get a full idea of what you are looking at you need both qualitative and quantitative data.

Has it largely gone, we still here the pros say they want to get it to x yards as it is their favourite distance, and earlier in this thread DJ saying if he's less than 50 then something has gone wrong. This would suggest that it hasn't gone but in fact is still used by the best players out there.

The question I would ask is shot goes into the water, pin is 3 yards from the front, water up to the green. Would a tour pro drop it at the edge of the water leaving himself 20 yards in, or would he go back to say 70 yards.

I have seen it time and time again, they would go back, from 20 yards they cannot spin the ball enough to stop, so even if the pitched it perfectly the ball would run on leaving a long putt.

This would show qualitatively that closer is not necessarily better. So right of the bat you rmaxim is killed. Which brings me back to my point is that the tour pros know exactly where everything is on the hole and know how to get close in an as few shots as possible. Perhaps we can say everything in their favour shorter is better than longer, but the point being is they are only going to hit it closer if it is in their favour to do so. If it isn't, pin on the front with danger then they will put themselves further back in order to stop the ball.

An analogy with cricket, a Yorker is statistically the delivery that will result in more batsmen being bowled. So why doesn't every fast bowler just bowl Yorkers? Because the situation dictates that they don't do it. Just like golf maybe being closer does mean you have a statistical advantage, but only in certain situations. Which is why the top players won't always be leaving themselves as little as possible

You're using specific individual holes and scenarios to state that 100 yards is better.

Nobody is debating that there are times where 100 out will be better than 40.

But over thousands of shots by hundereds of players over all types of courses players are better off, in general, being closer to the hole.

That is was have been statistically PROVEN.

Qualitative analysis in the corporate world is often just required to help people who don't understand numbers.

That cricket analogy is awful.

 

[r0wly86]

Oof , give it up.

Nearer = better. Agreed not in all cases.
But in most .

So many stats from so many places bare this out.
Across golf, game golf, PGA stats.


Go and look at them.

I do give up, you keep pointing to the stats I keep pointing out that stats need further explaining.

Stats do not show anything, this is a fact of statistics. All they do is list data. Humans will, in this case you, interpret the statistics to prove something or make a claim.

In analysing the claim you have to look at what is being claimed, is anything being left out, is there a direct causal link or a correlation. If a correlation is it strong/weak, positive/negative. What does the correlation show us?

What is the story behind the statistics, is there a trend have the stats altered much over the years. Always ask questions, just to accept data as a given is no good

 

[MendieGK]

Europr

If you think I am silly because I prefer to a whole picture rather than solely relying on statistics then I give up. I could literally reel off 100s of examples of statistics that "prove" something when we know in real life it proves nothing of the sort.

The handicap golfer is a completely different kettle of fish, I was talking about pros who diligently practice these shots. If you are asking whether an amateur who does very little practice from any distance in, then of course being closer is easer as your margin of error won't result in such big discrepencies.

For the eurotour player we was talking about last summer, specifically yon the continent, and last summer I played some bang average course that were running at 12, if a course was setting up for a pro event even a euro tour event shock horror I'm sure they could get them quicker.

You think eurotour pros should be ignored in what they say as they have no future in golf, but the handicap golfers on this forum should be trusted?

People’s perceptions of what most greens run at are largely incorrect. People say they’re running at 12. They most likely aren’t above 10.

Europro golfers are taught to believe they are better than they are, because they’ve had smoke blown up their arses. I. Can assure you most on here probably know more than those golfers

 

[robinthehood]

I do give up, you keep pointing to the stats I keep pointing out that stats need further explaining.

Stats do not show anything, this is a fact of statistics. All they do is list data. Humans will, in this case you, interpret the statistics to prove something or make a claim.

In analysing the claim you have to look at what is being claimed, is anything being left out, is there a direct causal link or a correlation. If a correlation is it strong/weak, positive/negative. What does the correlation show us?

What is the story behind the statistics, is there a trend have the stats altered much over the years. Always ask questions, just to accept data as a given is no good

Now you're just looking silly. (ER)

Go on the pga website and look, tell me what it is you don't understand. They are broken down by category , distance, fairway, rough, sand , fringe, distance
Its amazing how in depth they are.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

This thread has gone massively off track. The title is YOUR layup distance.

 

[robinthehood]

This thread has gone massively off track. The title is YOUR layup distance.

I don't have one, it's statistically been proven that you're better of being as close as possible.