Every Shot Counts by Mark Broadie

[Richie3Jack]

I just finished reading the entire book. I think the book starts off a little rough in the beginning. He started explaining some advanced mathematical concepts and for a reader of a golf book, I didn't think stuff like Dynamic Programming was overly pertinent as to what a golfer would want to know reading the book. But the more I started to read the book, the more I started to enjoy it. I do think that part of it is that with my statistical background and having done my own research with statistics and the game, it was a fairly easy read for me. Much of it ended up being confirmation.

The parts I really liked about it was the simulation stuff as far as strategy. Particularly on whether to 'go for it' when hitting a rescue shot. It had a break-even point that I thought was excellent. The same with where to aim off the tee given certain situations. I don't quite agree with it as far as where a scratch or better golfer should aim with O.B. right and no real trouble left. I think they should aim somewhere between the middle of the fairway and the left edge of the fairway instead of just aiming at the middle of the fairway. But, I think he makes an interesting analysis based on simulation. With that said, there is a psychological component that is being missed on here.

What I didn't like was that for a book that took the importance of putting to task....it has a lot of work on analyzing putting. I would guess at least 50% of the book was putting oriented. He also prescribes that you should alter your target based on the slope of the putt. So if you have an uphill putt, your 'target' should be closer to where the hole is.

This is something I've been asking for years 'should you have a target past the cup since the optimal speed will make the ball travel roughly 12 inches past the cup?' I've been able to contact a few neurologists like Dr. Keith McDaniel and each one has said 'no, that's now how the brain functions'

As Geoff Mangum and Dr. Bhrett McCabe have pointed out, it's much like if I was going to toss a set of house keys to a friend that is 10 feet away. We pretty much know instinctively how hard to throw the keys and we don't need practice swings or visualizing a fake target.

I also think the Strokes Gained metric has some flaws to it, particularly after discussing this with my cousin who has a PhD in Mathematics, but doesn't know a thing about golf. We find that the Strokes Gained metric is more flawed as the shots are further away from the hole. So while we liked it for putting, approach shots were still good, but less liked and Strokes Gained - Driving we find to be...at times...very troublesome.

I think the rough beginning of the book may have turned some readers off to it, but I would suggest that they stick around as it gets better.







3JACK

[cwdlaw223]

I thought the book was overly technical and difficult to read. I enjoyed his section about putting and how we place too much importance on that area of our game when there are so many other factors outside of our control that influence good putting IMO.

His target concept was goofy and just plain wrong. If I consistently hit the ball past the hole on downhill putts why would I envision the hole farther away when I obviously have a distance control problem?

[Richie3Jack]

He glossed over the American Journal Review on Tour players missing more birdie putts than par putts and I feel missed some key parts to what the scientists uncovered. I will go over that article in 2014 Pro Golf Synopsis.

I can't say I'm a great putter by any means. Although I was a great putter in my collegiate golf days. I don't recall ever using a fake target unless I was missing short or long frequently. So, I would then adjust my 'target.'

I've gotten to the point now where I don't take a practice stroke. I was using Geoff Mangum's pre-putt routine and found that was helpful, but having that many practice strokes I found got me thinking too much. So now I just read the putt, use AimPoint Express, aim and fire. If I miss, at least I 'miss 'em quick' like Moe Norman used to say.






3JACK

[cwdlaw223]

I rarely, if ever, take practice strokes. I want to focus on my aim line and just putt. Also, practice strokes let the devil in the past or present catch up and wreck me in the present.

[ericpaul2]

I made it about halfway through the book. I can almost hear some editor somewhere saying "This won't sell, you have to make big, broad generalizations refuting some commonly held belief to grab the readers' attention". It's like he purposely created too few categories in order to be able to say that putting was not as important and then makes the assumptions that 1) to say "drive for show, putt for dough" automatically means that driving is not important and 2) that driving equals long game, both of which is unreasonable. Of course it's important, the question is "how important" and dammit, driving is not the same skill has hitting a long iron, or a short iron, or a wedge.

BTW, anyone read the recent article on GolfWRX about "first putt distance"? Isn't that just another term for proximity to the hole? And isn't that exactly what Richie has been using to measure performance from his various zones?

[Richie3Jack]

Proximity to the cup measures shots that are within 30 yards of the edge of the green. So there's going to be a difference between Proximity to the cup and first putt distance if you're not finding the green.

Broadie used broad generalizations well before the book ever came out. I like his work and actually preferred his publish Columbia work over the book. I'm glad he's popularizing the use of advanced metrics in the game. However, I usually run into 2 types of people after reading Broadie's work:

1. The ones that start thinking that any shot longer than 100 yards is more important than any shot under 100 yards (not true).


2. The people that read his 'long game vs. short game' statements and don't believe it and then assume that all statisticians don't know what they are talking about and dismiss statistics all together.


So what happens with #1 is golfers start neglecting their putting. And they will start using their shorter irons, like 7-iron thru PW because that is what they were always told to practice with and they hit them longer than 100 yards. But, they could improve their score by more with improved putting and short game shots from say 10-30 yards. And if they are going to work on their long game, they would be better off working on their 3-hybrid thru 6-iron along with spending time with the driver. I think in general, golfers love to hit their driver...particularly if they get better at hitting it. And the statistics shows that it will pay big dividends to improve your driving. So I think the statistics, with better segmentation, will get golfers practicing what they like to practice with.

I think this is something very useful for golf instructors. I don't give lessons outside of working with my dad on his swing from time-to-time and giving some of his friends who are basically at their wits end with their game some free mini-lessons. While I always start off with a 7-iron to work with to try and get the ball airborne while explaining some concepts that they need to work on, I always make sure they can translate those instructional concepts to the driver by the end of the lesson because the driver is so important to their ability to lower their scores. If I were a professional instructor doing it for a living, I would really work on not only their driver swing, but make sure that the repeat lesson takers are properly fitted for a driver.

I find the driver is overlooked by golf instruction as a whole.







3JACK

[Golf Nerd]

Totally agree about the "target past the hole" when putting. I can't imagine looking at a downhill putt, and thinking "well, let's aim even further past than I would if this was uphill." Yes, the slope means more shots likely will end up past, but not sure that's the thought process. I have a question out to Mark on Twitter about this - interested to hear his thoughts!

Otherwise, I still loved the book for the way it makes you think about each shot.

[Golf Nerd]

Golf Nerd @markbroadie do pros consciously aim farther past on DH putts, or is it a result of gravity? What do they think they are doing vs the outcome

@markbroadie Golf Nerd Thanks for the question. I doubt any pro does it consciously! Result of gravity.

Well, there you go!