| |
Main
Date: 05 Sep 2006 10:40:28
From:
Subject: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
X-no-archive: yes
As one way to judge where to improve my game, I started figuring
out how accurate I am in various shots. The accuracy is always
expressed as a ratio to distance. If I hit a 150 yard shot and half the
time I am 20 yards from the hole or better, it would be a ratio
of 13.3%. A 300 yard drive with the same ratio would be within
40 yards of the intended target half the time.
In doing this is became clear which parts of my game needed
shoring up, and which parts were doing fine.
But then I applied it to putting. My ratio for putting is half of
my long-game ratio. Putting is just a lot more accurate. The adage
"my best chip is equivalent to my worst putt" is there for a reason.
Anyway, wondered if others had applied this to their games,
or noticed the accuracy difference putting/non-putting.
-PA
PS. I figured a tour pro has a ratio of roughly 6.5% for their
long game and 2% for putting.
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 19:14:38
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
<blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1157478027.807502.28530@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> X-no-archive: yes
>
> As one way to judge where to improve my game, I started figuring
> out how accurate I am in various shots. The accuracy is always
> expressed as a ratio to distance. If I hit a 150 yard shot and half the
> time I am 20 yards from the hole or better, it would be a ratio
> of 13.3%. A 300 yard drive with the same ratio would be within
> 40 yards of the intended target half the time.
>
> In doing this is became clear which parts of my game needed
> shoring up, and which parts were doing fine.
>
> But then I applied it to putting. My ratio for putting is half of
> my long-game ratio. Putting is just a lot more accurate. The adage
> "my best chip is equivalent to my worst putt" is there for a reason.
>
> Anyway, wondered if others had applied this to their games,
> or noticed the accuracy difference putting/non-putting.
>
> -PA
>
> PS. I figured a tour pro has a ratio of roughly 6.5% for their
> long game and 2% for putting.
>
That analysis is meaningful for shots EXCEPT for putts. A 24' putt that
stops hole high, 1 foot to the right is not a better putt than one that
kisses the lip and stops 18 inches long.
dave
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 11:56:17
From:
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> > As one way to judge where to improve my game, I started figuring
> > out how accurate I am in various shots. The accuracy is always
> > expressed as a ratio to distance. If I hit a 150 yard shot and half the
> > time I am 20 yards from the hole or better, it would be a ratio
> > of 13.3%. A 300 yard drive with the same ratio would be within
> > 40 yards of the intended target half the time.
> >
> > In doing this is became clear which parts of my game needed
> > shoring up, and which parts were doing fine.
> >
> > But then I applied it to putting. My ratio for putting is half of
> > my long-game ratio. Putting is just a lot more accurate. The adage
> > "my best chip is equivalent to my worst putt" is there for a reason.
> >
> > Anyway, wondered if others had applied this to their games,
> > or noticed the accuracy difference putting/non-putting.
>
> Dave Pelz did exactly that. He calls it the PEI (percentage error
> index, I believe).
>
> Although you stated above, "If I hit a 150 yard shot and half the time
> I am 20 yards from the hole or better...".... why HALF the time? I
> think it'd be better to record distance from the pin, then you can
> determine the mean and median error.
Half the time is the median. If you make assumptions that the
distribution
scales in accuracy the mean, median, etc, all follow straightforward.
> > PS. I figured a tour pro has a ratio of roughly 6.5% for their
> > long game and 2% for putting.
>
> You're being too conservative in your estimate, especially for putts.
> Roll a 10 footer 3 feet by, and it's an error of 30%. Few pros die
> their putts into the hole.
I figured a golf hole is 4 inches wide and a pro makes more than half
his putts from 6 feet. That is a 2 inch error over 72 inches distance
or
2.7%. Making half the 8 footers is 2%.
Perhaps I am over-estimating the accuracy of a tour pro...but I figured
from 150 yards they would get inside 30 feet half the time, which
is 6.7%...Or a 300 yard drive in a 40 yard wide fairway half the time,
which is 6.7%
Was Pelz data current or from the 70s?
> What the real moment for Pelz is when he discovered that the PEI for
> longer shots was due mostly to direction, but once a wedge was put into
> a pro's hands, PEI was due mostly to distance control.
Interesting...when applied to my own game I found wedge work was
needed,
after spending a little more time practicing pitching scoring is of
course
down somewhat...
-PA
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 11:13:34
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
> As one way to judge where to improve my game, I started figuring
> out how accurate I am in various shots. The accuracy is always
> expressed as a ratio to distance. If I hit a 150 yard shot and half the
> time I am 20 yards from the hole or better, it would be a ratio
> of 13.3%. A 300 yard drive with the same ratio would be within
> 40 yards of the intended target half the time.
>
> In doing this is became clear which parts of my game needed
> shoring up, and which parts were doing fine.
>
> But then I applied it to putting. My ratio for putting is half of
> my long-game ratio. Putting is just a lot more accurate. The adage
> "my best chip is equivalent to my worst putt" is there for a reason.
>
> Anyway, wondered if others had applied this to their games,
> or noticed the accuracy difference putting/non-putting.
Dave Pelz did exactly that. He calls it the PEI (percentage error
index, I believe).
Although you stated above, "If I hit a 150 yard shot and half the time
I am 20 yards from the hole or better...".... why HALF the time? I
think it'd be better to record distance from the pin, then you can
determine the mean and median error.
> PS. I figured a tour pro has a ratio of roughly 6.5% for their
> long game and 2% for putting.
You're being too conservative in your estimate, especially for putts.
Roll a 10 footer 3 feet by, and it's an error of 30%. Few pros die
their putts into the hole.
I'm going from memory here, but in your long game estimate, Pelz
figured PEI to be about 12% for all pros. Higher than you might think.
What the real moment for Pelz is when he discovered that the PEI for
longer shots was due mostly to direction, but once a wedge was put into
a pro's hands, PEI was due mostly to distance control.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 11:56:04
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
On 5 Sep 2006 11:13:34 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>You're being too conservative in your estimate, especially for putts.
>Roll a 10 footer 3 feet by, and it's an error of 30%. Few pros die
>their putts into the hole.
But I don't care how far away my miss is measured in feet (or yards),
I care how far away my miss is measured in strokes.
For example, a missed tap-in 2" away from the hole isn't twice as bad
as a ball 1" away from the hole.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 22:26:11
From:
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
>Few pros die their putts into the hole.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
when a pro misses a putt, where does the ball end up? I see quite a few
coming up full short. This makes me think of coming up short as a form
of aborting the strike.
If you are with it, and you miss, you shouldn't be over 10-15 inches
behind the cup, but there are sone balls that go beyond that distance.
It's the Indian that screws up, not the Arrow.
>m h o
>=A0v =83e
>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0e s p r i t =A0d e =A0c o r p
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 09:17:29
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
Joe wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> >
> >>On 5 Sep 2006 11:13:34 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You're being too conservative in your estimate, especially for putts.
> >>>Roll a 10 footer 3 feet by, and it's an error of 30%. Few pros die
> >>>their putts into the hole.
> >>
> >>But I don't care how far away my miss is measured in feet (or yards),
> >>I care how far away my miss is measured in strokes.
> >>
> >>For example, a missed tap-in 2" away from the hole isn't twice as bad
> >>as a ball 1" away from the hole.
> >
> >
> > Right, and Pelz doesn't measure putts in PEI, but the OP was, I
> > believe.
> >
> > IMO, the only real way to measure putting is how long the putts were
> > and how many were made, and even that is lacking as far as difficulty
> > of the putt.
> >
> You are right that the only meaningful measure of putting skill, at
> least when measured on the course, is make or not, with a % at various
> distances. The problem, as you allude to, is that putting is a mix of
> different skills:
>
> selecting a line - mental
> choosing a speed - mental
> starting the ball on the line physical
> hitting at the speed chosen physical
>
> The latter two can be practiced easily enough and measured to see
> performance improvements. I practice at home on a short nap carpet by
> putting at a dime. The floor takes out the break issue and you are
> working at just speed and line. I want to cross the dime and not go
> more than 10 inches passed. This will tune you up pretty quickly.
Good ideas, but there's even more to speed than just hitting it the
right "hardness". Without solid ball striking, speed control will
suffer no matter how well you judge the speed.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 02:33:08
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>>
>>The latter two can be practiced easily enough and measured to see
>>performance improvements. I practice at home on a short nap carpet by
>>putting at a dime. The floor takes out the break issue and you are
>>working at just speed and line. I want to cross the dime and not go
>>more than 10 inches passed. This will tune you up pretty quickly.
>
>
> Good ideas, but there's even more to speed than just hitting it the
> right "hardness". Without solid ball striking, speed control will
> suffer no matter how well you judge the speed.
>
I agree and this isn't intended to be argumentative with you, but how
hard is it for people to execute a solid putting stroke? The putting at
a dime routine assumes that the player can hit the ball with the center
of the putter pretty much every time and with the face angle right. If
they can't do that then it will show up right away. :)
I am asking because that is the one thing I know I can get right 99% of
the time, with the putter anyway. The brain side .... well that is a
whole other matter.
Joe
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 07:59:31
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2006 11:13:34 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You're being too conservative in your estimate, especially for putts.
> >Roll a 10 footer 3 feet by, and it's an error of 30%. Few pros die
> >their putts into the hole.
>
> But I don't care how far away my miss is measured in feet (or yards),
> I care how far away my miss is measured in strokes.
>
> For example, a missed tap-in 2" away from the hole isn't twice as bad
> as a ball 1" away from the hole.
Right, and Pelz doesn't measure putts in PEI, but the OP was, I
believe.
IMO, the only real way to measure putting is how long the putts were
and how many were made, and even that is lacking as far as difficulty
of the putt.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 15:55:43
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
>>On 5 Sep 2006 11:13:34 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You're being too conservative in your estimate, especially for putts.
>>>Roll a 10 footer 3 feet by, and it's an error of 30%. Few pros die
>>>their putts into the hole.
>>
>>But I don't care how far away my miss is measured in feet (or yards),
>>I care how far away my miss is measured in strokes.
>>
>>For example, a missed tap-in 2" away from the hole isn't twice as bad
>>as a ball 1" away from the hole.
>
>
> Right, and Pelz doesn't measure putts in PEI, but the OP was, I
> believe.
>
> IMO, the only real way to measure putting is how long the putts were
> and how many were made, and even that is lacking as far as difficulty
> of the putt.
>
You are right that the only meaningful measure of putting skill, at
least when measured on the course, is make or not, with a % at various
distances. The problem, as you allude to, is that putting is a mix of
different skills:
selecting a line - mental
choosing a speed - mental
starting the ball on the line physical
hitting at the speed chosen physical
The latter two can be practiced easily enough and measured to see
performance improvements. I practice at home on a short nap carpet by
putting at a dime. The floor takes out the break issue and you are
working at just speed and line. I want to cross the dime and not go
more than 10 inches passed. This will tune you up pretty quickly.
If someone is into tracking performance there are three measures they
can keep. Putting distance and hits (a binary number, putting distance
and miss distance passed the dime in inches and an aggregate % of
success for various distances where success is that you hit the dime and
not go more that 10" beyond.
Selecting line and speed, at least for me, can only come from practice
on the greens and improvement comes from just doing it over and over
again. On the practice green I look for the most contoured area and
just keep working from various angles. It's like learning to catch a
baseball. No shortcuts, just practice.
I know that you know all of this but I thought that it might be of
interest to some others.
Joe
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 07:51:52
From:
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> > > Dave Pelz did exactly that. He calls it the PEI (percentage error
> > > index, I believe).
> > >
> > > Although you stated above, "If I hit a 150 yard shot and half the time
> > > I am 20 yards from the hole or better...".... why HALF the time? I
> > > think it'd be better to record distance from the pin, then you can
> > > determine the mean and median error.
> >
> > Half the time is the median. If you make assumptions that the
> > distribution scales in accuracy the mean, median, etc, all follow straightforward.
>
> I'm not sure what you're saying. If you only record the shots that you
> hit within 20 yards of the pin, how does that give you can accurate
> representation of how far you really hit the ball from the hole?
Statistically, that just involves an assumption about how the median
is related to the distribution. For me it works out reasonably, that
is,
as a larger fraction of shots fall within 20 yards, a larger fraction
also fall withint 30, 40, and 50 yards.
-PA
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 05:56:45
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
> > Dave Pelz did exactly that. He calls it the PEI (percentage error
> > index, I believe).
> >
> > Although you stated above, "If I hit a 150 yard shot and half the time
> > I am 20 yards from the hole or better...".... why HALF the time? I
> > think it'd be better to record distance from the pin, then you can
> > determine the mean and median error.
>
> Half the time is the median. If you make assumptions that the
> distribution scales in accuracy the mean, median, etc, all follow straightforward.
I'm not sure what you're saying. If you only record the shots that you
hit within 20 yards of the pin, how does that give you can accurate
representation of how far you really hit the ball from the hole?
> > > PS. I figured a tour pro has a ratio of roughly 6.5% for their
> > > long game and 2% for putting.
> >
> > You're being too conservative in your estimate, especially for putts.
> > Roll a 10 footer 3 feet by, and it's an error of 30%. Few pros die
> > their putts into the hole.
>
> I figured a golf hole is 4 inches wide and a pro makes more than half
> his putts from 6 feet. That is a 2 inch error over 72 inches distance
> or
> 2.7%. Making half the 8 footers is 2%.
Pros make ONLY 50% of his putts from 6 feet. But what about the
misses? Do you consider rolling a 6 footer 3 feet by a miss by 50%?
> Perhaps I am over-estimating the accuracy of a tour pro...but I figured
> from 150 yards they would get inside 30 feet half the time, which
> is 6.7%...Or a 300 yard drive in a 40 yard wide fairway half the time,
> which is 6.7%
>
> Was Pelz data current or from the 70s?
I don't have the book in front of me. But it was over several years.
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 22:13:33
From:
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
>As one way to judge where to improve my game,
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
might qualify as a way of passing time. a slow process, most likely -
counter productive.
as an alternative, and you don't have the onus of keeping books, just
grind in good striking habits, you'll remember them.
>m h o
>=A0v =83e
>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0e s p r i t =A0d e =A0c o r p
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 10:25:09
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
Joe wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>The latter two can be practiced easily enough and measured to see
> >>performance improvements. I practice at home on a short nap carpet by
> >>putting at a dime. The floor takes out the break issue and you are
> >>working at just speed and line. I want to cross the dime and not go
> >>more than 10 inches passed. This will tune you up pretty quickly.
> >
> >
> > Good ideas, but there's even more to speed than just hitting it the
> > right "hardness". Without solid ball striking, speed control will
> > suffer no matter how well you judge the speed.
> >
> I agree and this isn't intended to be argumentative with you, but how
> hard is it for people to execute a solid putting stroke? The putting at
> a dime routine assumes that the player can hit the ball with the center
> of the putter pretty much every time and with the face angle right. If
> they can't do that then it will show up right away. :)
I could hit a putt on the heel with an open face too hard for a solid
stroke and still hit the dime. That's why crappy putters still
occasionally make a putt.
As far as how difficult is it, take a look at the Pelz Putting Bible
where he shows actual putter impact tape images for various
handicappers. Crappy players are all over the face of their putters.
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 07:36:38
From:
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
Dave Lee wrote:
> That analysis is meaningful for shots EXCEPT for putts. A 24' putt that
> stops hole high, 1 foot to the right is not a better putt than one that
> kisses the lip and stops 18 inches long.
I found it somewhat interesting that putts tend to be twice as
accurate, or more, than full or partial shots with clubs other
than the putter.
Of course the number of shots to finish a hole is the ultimate
measure, but I would argue that accuracy wrt YOUR CHOSEN
TARGET is a suitable substitute. For putts this may be a point
1-2 feet beyond the hole on the target line in which case
the putt that kisses the lip and goes 18 inches too
far is within 6 inches of the target, whereas the putt hole
high 1 foot right is 12 inches off.
Then again, the slower the ball is rolling, the bigger the
hole gets. My target on a 6 foot putt is about 3-4 inches behind
the hole on the target line.
And, again, if you have an accuracy of 4 inches at 6 feet, or 5.5%,
you should be able to lag to within 3 ft 3 inches on a 60 foot
putt. If not, you should work on the 60 foot lag putts. If you lag
better
than that, but are not within 4 inches on a 6 foot putt, work on the
shorter
putts. etc.
There are lots of processes that follow the general trend that accuracy
is proportional to distance. Your ability to judge time accurately
follows
such a rule. The ability to judge grip force changes, etc. Substantial
deviations from the rule indicate either an area you could improve
(like
if you hit your 9 iron much more accurately than your driver - work on
the driver),
or a way in which the game forces deviations (like the 50-100 yard
distance
being problematic, or putts being more accurate than non-putts).
-PA
|
| | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 01:00:38
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Accuracy, full shots, chips, and putts
|
<blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1157639798.692475.201170@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Lee wrote:
> > That analysis is meaningful for shots EXCEPT for putts. A 24' putt that
> > stops hole high, 1 foot to the right is not a better putt than one that
> > kisses the lip and stops 18 inches long.
>
> I found it somewhat interesting that putts tend to be twice as
> accurate, or more, than full or partial shots with clubs other
> than the putter.
>
> Of course the number of shots to finish a hole is the ultimate
> measure, but I would argue that accuracy wrt YOUR CHOSEN
> TARGET is a suitable substitute. For putts this may be a point
> 1-2 feet beyond the hole on the target line in which case
> the putt that kisses the lip and goes 18 inches too
> far is within 6 inches of the target, whereas the putt hole
> high 1 foot right is 12 inches off.
>
> Then again, the slower the ball is rolling, the bigger the
> hole gets. My target on a 6 foot putt is about 3-4 inches behind
> the hole on the target line.
>
> And, again, if you have an accuracy of 4 inches at 6 feet, or 5.5%,
> you should be able to lag to within 3 ft 3 inches on a 60 foot
> putt. If not, you should work on the 60 foot lag putts. If you lag
> better
> than that, but are not within 4 inches on a 6 foot putt, work on the
> shorter
> putts. etc.
>
> There are lots of processes that follow the general trend that accuracy
>
> is proportional to distance. Your ability to judge time accurately
> follows
> such a rule. The ability to judge grip force changes, etc. Substantial
> deviations from the rule indicate either an area you could improve
> (like
> if you hit your 9 iron much more accurately than your driver - work on
> the driver),
> or a way in which the game forces deviations (like the 50-100 yard
> distance
> being problematic, or putts being more accurate than non-putts).
>
> -PA
>
If you limit your analysis to lag putting, then I would agree with that
analytical methodology. I'm not saying that lag putting and making 15
footers is not important, but my experience tells me that the real
difference between good putting and not-so-good putting (for me) is making 4
to 6 footers.
Regarding the original question I would suggest that putting tends to be
more accurate because it is easier to take the uncertainty of good impact
out of the equation when putting (vs. other shots).
Dave Pelz (particularly his Putting Bible and Short Game books) has done a
bunch of work in this area.
dave
|
|
