Wednesday, June 27, 2018

What really separates your BEST and WORST rounds?

Do you wonder what changes the most when you're playing your best vs. those rounds you'd like to forget?  I've been providing this perspective to pro tour players for years, but golfers at every level can benefit from this information.  The good news is that it's readily available on  Here are the steps to running what I call a BEST vs. WORST analysis, or specifically the Best vs. Worst of your most recent 20 rounds.

Under Analyze, use the Filter Rounds tab:

1.  Run an analysis of the Most Recent 20 rounds.  It can be more or less rounds and can also be further filtered by type and format (e.g., Tournament, Stroke play... and even by Course).

2.  From the Rounds/Scoring page of the analysis, record:
    a.  Average score
   b. Date of the oldest round analyzed (this will be the anchor date for your BEST and WORST analysis).

3.  BEST - Select:  Score Less than or Equal to:   The average score AND anchor the analysis on the Start Date (2. b. above).  This will produce the BEST analysis.  If it is not exactly 10 rounds (or half of whatever # of rounds you're using), simply adjust the score selected up or down by 1.  Record the Strokes Gained for each facet as I have done in the chart below.

4.  WORST - Select:  Score Greater than or Equal to:  One stroke above the score used in the BEST analysis above.  Again, anchor the analysis with the Start Date.  Record the Strokes Gained for each facet as I have done in the chart below.

5.  Calculate the difference between the Strokes Gained for each facet to determine the greatest differences.  You can then re-run the analysis to determine exactly what is causing the differences.

The case above is an actual study that I did for a Mini Tour player.  Putting came as a surprise as it had long been one of his strengths.  When we looked closer, we found a fairly dramatic drop in his 1-Putt success in the critical ranges 4 to 10 feet while at the same time his 3-Putts nearly doubled.  Clearly good to know, and the information he needed to see where there was work to be done!

Thursday, March 23, 2017 adds Skills Tests & Practice Applications

Sounds fantastic!  Tell me more about it.
These new features can be used by our instructor/coach Group Leaders to:
  • Conduct supervised skills tests to ascertain a player’s skill level & relative handicap.
  • Create an ideal first lesson in a specific skill.  How good or bad is the player now and in the case of the latter, identify what areas need the most work.
  • Assign practice sessions and monitor the player’s USE and RESULTS.  How do the Practice session results compare to those of the supervised test?  Is improvement carrying over into the Complete Game and scoring?
  • Give users serious tools to help them practice properly, with purpose, accountability and accurate feedback/analysis.

How much does it cost?
NOTHING!  We have added these new features to ALL subscribers at no additional cost.  Further, it provides more to offer your students and can be built into your lesson plans to add revenue.

Where do I find it?
Go to the top navigation bar in your account and click on Skills Practice.
What does it include?

Putting is a stand-alone module, like our Complete Game Analysis, and with all the important features.  Once entered, Putting test/practice sessions will appear under Putting History and can be analyzed & filtered exactly as Complete Game rounds are.

See the specific instructions for set-up and execution of the Approach and Short Game skills tests, as well as how to differentiate skills tests from practice sessions.  

What if I need help?
Please do not hesitate to contact us:
Peter Sanders,
Office:  203-968-1608
Cell:  203-912-8734
Skip Williamson,
Cell:  203-512-9424

Monday, March 14, 2016

Were the Copperhead greens really that slow?

It is always more fun to watch an event when I have played the course AND when bogeys are more common than birdies as was the case in this week's Valspar Championship.  I find myself anguishing along with the contenders over the difficult drives, approaches, short game shots - how about those buried lies - and putts.  Speaking of putts, I cannot remember seeing greens as slow in a PGA Tour event.  10.5 was mentioned but they looked more like 9 and Justin Leonard said 9 on the telecast after his round.  So what effect did the slow greens have on the field?  What would you expect?

Fewer 3-Putts?
Since one does not have to worry about their lags getting away from them this would make sense.  YES!  3-Putt Avoidance was 19% better for the Valspar field than the 2016 Tour average (2.2% vs. 2.79%).  This says that the Valspar field 3-Putted on 2.2% of their greens of 1.6 times in 72 holes vs. the Tour avg. 2.0 3-Putts in 72 holes.

More 1-Putts? 
Players can be more bold?  Also YES but not by as much as one might think.  The Valspar field
1-Putted 40.1% of their greens vs. the 2016 Tour average 38.5%.

There was ONE major difference in Distance control:  
Lag Putts (20+ ft.) holed or hit past the hole.   The 2015 Tour average for this distance control stat was 67% of lag putts had a chance to go in and, on average, 7% found the hole.  The Valspar field only got 47% of their 20+ ft. lag putts to the hole and only 5% went in.  That is a major difference.

With the majority of lag putts left short, the % 3-Putts from 20+ ft. was exactly the same as the 2015 Tour average - 8%. 

Finally, the dramatically slower greens did not produce a single 4 or 5-Putt.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

How difficult were the poa greens at Riviera

I recently did a detailed Putting - Distance Control study comparing Jordan Spieth's 2015 year to the most recent five, year-end, Strokes Gained leaders and the 2015 Tour average (please look for my article in the next issue of Golf Digest).  Something jumped out in that there were 88 4-Putts and five 5-Putts on Tour in 2015.  We obviously don't see these on TV.  I typically have one 4-Putt every season so like to get it out of the way early in the year.  Have never recorded 5 putts yet - WHEW!  In 27 years of Shot By Shot data, we see very few 4-Putts.  Why?  The vast majority of our rounds are match play format and players tend to very appropriately pick up that 3rd putt.

Not only did the fairly large number of 4+ putts stand out but two courses owned more of them than any of the others:
  • CC of Jackson had the most with EIGHT 4-Putts in 2015.  
  • Riviera was 2nd with SEVEN 4-Putts and, even more surprising, was that FIVE of the seven fell on the 1st hole - a very reachable Par 5.  
There was quite a bit of discussion during the Norther Trust telecast about the difficulty of the poa greens so I decided to see HOW difficult and WHY; as well as, see if the 4-Putts were repeated. 
The greater difficulty is not a surprise and was specifically pointed out by Nick Faldo - specifically the ability, or lack thereof, to make the 4-5 ft. putts.  Good get Sir Nick!  To support your point, the biggest difference between the 2015 Tour average and Riviera performance was the 4-5 ft. range (see graphic above).  This key distance led to the highest rate of 3-Putts that I have seen in a PGA Tour event.  Riviera = .72/round vs. 2015 Tour avg. = .51/round

Was it the Lag difficulty?
No!  The average start distances and leaves/results were close enough to be a wash but the average leave distances for 3-Putts was telling.  In 2015 the Tour's average leave  on 3+ Putts was 6.1 ft. (the distance for their 2nd putt).  At Riviera the average 3+ Putt leave distance was 5.7 ft.  In short, the Riviera field 3-Putted with far greater frequency by missing shorter 2nd putts - on average 5 inches closer to the hole. 
What about the 4-Putts? 
There were TEN in 2016 - up from the SEVEN in 2015.  They were obviously caused by unusually difficult pin placements:
  • Round 1, THREE 4-Putts, on three different holes.
  • Round 2, FOUR 4-Putts, 9th hole.
  • Round 4, THREE 4-Putts, 6th hole.
I wonder if the Tour officials review their numbers to identify, and avoid, these overly difficult placements?