|
Post by teeace on Oct 1, 2014 15:23:44 GMT -5
They're not facts Tapio. You don't understand statistical data and how it works. You are arguing against math. You are essentially arguing against facts. 3JACK How can you say they are not facts when everyone can check those in few minutes. All numbers I gave can be checked from shot tracker or just watching tournaments. I understand statistical data and also what is missing there. If that shows players hit 0,5 wedges per round, something is totally wrong with that data as the true number is between 6-12, depending of round and course. So why player needs more wedges? We coaches talk about scoring game and from what distance (what clubs) you regularly hit it closer to the pin. One can sometimes hit his 5 iron close, but if taking averages they are far away from wedges. 7/8 irons are partly scoring clubs, longer clubs are for surviving. Good enough is to hit decent shots with those to find the green or to avoid worst places. With wedges it's also known that players miss those shots much more by distance than by direction. More wedges they got, more often they end to yardage that fits perfectly to their shot. Not only full shots, but half wedges and shorter. More they got possibilities to chose how ball behaves when it lands to the green etc. For the moment I follow only 5 players, each round, each shot by stats and mathematical fact for those players are, better they handle their over all wedge game inside of 120yds, better they score. That's also the part of the game where players improve most by practice after their long shots are at decent level. That's why I put nowadays 50% of time for wedges and only about 10% for long shots. Edit: About driving I 100% agree. On the other hand, it's most difficult part to improve.
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Oct 2, 2014 0:46:38 GMT -5
The estimate you make about being 4-6 shots difference is where you make the most egregious error. You keep assuming the player can somehow convert those attempts to down to two shots to hole out. That's impossible, even at the lower ranges. The question isn't even how many shots you hit from certain ranges, it's how much better can you do by carrying a fourth wedge. The argument is...not much better, certainly a good portion of that is putting. Meanwhile, if you carry four wedges and leave out a 2H or 5W, you could very well have a 30-35 yard gap in that range. Considering greens are about the same length, your chances of missing those greens are extremely high, and now you're scrambling with and expected stroke total of 2.5 at best. Hitting green with 5w? Because of there is no gap in distance? Sorry ericpaul... I don't think so. When you are that far away from the green, and that maybe happens 0,5-1 time per round, you gonna miss the green and the reason is mostly something else than that gap. There is wind etc that effects from that distance so much that missing is more than obvious. I carried H2 in my bag few years ago, 5W also .... around 93-94... never after that as my 3i is close enough for that. And on the other hand.. again depends on the course what clubs to carry there
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Oct 2, 2014 9:13:17 GMT -5
The other part is that 'we use wedges a lot' is that it is dependent more often than not on your ballstriking.
If you strike it well, less wedges around the green are going to be used assuming the golfer is playing a course that is in line with how long they hit the ball off the tee.
One of the things I looked at with my statistics was how well shots worked mathematically correlated to success from different distance ranges. On Tour, there's not a strong correlation (+0.5 or more) inside 20-yards. But, there is a correlation usually in the +0.25 to +0.35 range from 10-20 yards. That tells us that there is some impact that shots from 10-20 yards have on success on Tour because we consistently get that correlation year-after-year. It's just not a strong direct relationship by any means.
Less than 10 yards the correlation is down quite a bit.
Then when you combine shots from less than 20 yards, you start to see a slightly higher correlation than shots from 10-20 yards.
This tells us that it's important to look at shots from less than 20 yards. But, the main focus should be when it comes to the short game the shots from 10-20 yards (for Tour players).
Once you get outside 20 yards, whether it's shots from 20-30 yards or 30-50 yards the correlation drops dramatically to the point of being almost nil. And if you try and combine those 20-30 yard or 30-50 yard shots in any manner with shots from <10 yards and/or shots from 10-20 yards...the correlation is lower than if you just look at all shots from < 20 yards.
Essentially, the shots from 20-30 yards and 30-50 yards are non-consequential to a player's success on Tour over the course of the season. And I would reason that the issue with those shots is that they typically come from very bad approach shots (or a player who hits it into the trees and punches out). And that the positioning of those shots is so poor that any Tour player is going to struggle to get it close consistently.
But, the main issue is that they would not have had that shot if they struck the ball better.
When Furyk shot a 59 last year, I don't think he had an approach shot that was less than 110 yards outside of the par-5's. IIRC, he hit every fairway and only missed 1 green. He just flagged everything which mostly required him to hit approach shots from over 150 yards and he did not miss a fairway all day long.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by teeace on Oct 2, 2014 9:39:26 GMT -5
When Furyk shot a 59 last year, I don't think he had an approach shot that was less than 110 yards outside of the par-5's. IIRC, he hit every fairway and only missed 1 green. He just flagged everything which mostly required him to hit approach shots from over 150 yards and he did not miss a fairway all day long. 3JACK No question about that and also no question about that if you hit it so well you don't miss greens at all. The point is that no one is playing like that more than few rounds per year, no matter how much they spend time on range. What I wonder a bit is that shot tracker data around the greens. It gives very low distances sometimes even when players miss is on the other side of the green than the flag. Even from fringe it would be easily over 20 yds shot. Just randomly again check one round of winner Billy Horschel at BMW. Shots he had and what are discussed here were: 1. 27 yds -1 2. 67 yds +1 3 20 yds -1 7. 85yds -1 10. 119yds - 11 44yds - 13. 111yds - 17. 55 yds - So he had 8 times shot between that 20-125 yds distance and number after yardage tells the result as "gained" so that -1 is holed by two shots, +1 by four. He went to the hole by two shots in three holes, by 4 shots at one hole and 4 times by three. So his scoring from that range was -2 in my way of thinking and total score 69 at that round. All birdies he maid at that round came from those -1 holes and after wedge shot. All of them. And I would say that was lousy wedge game from him but enough to win that tournament.
|
|