Grayhawk's Raptor Must Be an Easy Course

The "Fall Series" is clearly a chance for remainder of the PGA Tour golfers to record a win - and one of them did last weekend. Troy Matteson - a new one on me?!

The title of this article takes a snipe at Grayhawk. Underlying this is the fact that I saw something that I have yet to see in years of studying the PGA Tour's golf statistics - not one but two nearly perfect long game rounds. Rickie Fowler (one of the three golfers tied at -18 after 72 holes) kicked off the event by hitting all 18 greens in regulation. It follows that he made no errors off the tee. His one blemish was a 3-putt-bogey from 44 feet on the 13th hole. Rickie's Long Game Efficiency Index* (LGEI; go here for an explanation) was 1.66, much better than our 2.00 standard for hitting all 18 GIR's (assuming 36 long game shots). For perspective, the ShotByShot.com 2009 Winner's Profile LGEI is 2.28, averaging 13.6 GIR's and 32.8 long game shots.

Troy Matteson, the winner at Grayhawk, also managed to hit all 18 greens in his impressive 61 (2nd round). This round is the closest to a perfect round of golf that I have seen as it featured no mistakes off the tee, or in the two short game shots he faced. He had no 3-putts and made all of his short putt opportunities - those inside 10 feet. For good measure, Troy tossed in two longish putts of 18 and 27 feet respectively. He recorded 1 eagle, 7 birdies and 10 pars. Troy's LGEI was slightly better than Rickie's at 1.61 - no wonder he won.

Finally, I saw something else that I have yet to see from a player that plays well enough to tie for the lead after 72 holes. Jamie Lovemark, the 3rd almost-winner began his quest on the first hole with a most inauspicious missed par-putt from inside 2 feet - 1' 6" to be painfully exact - Ouch! I bet he sees that one in his sleep.

*Patent Pending

OK, Know-it-all: What IS Yang's Problem?

I hope you read my last entry. In it I pointed out what I believed to be Johnny Miller's mistaken assessment as to why Y.A. Yang does not measure up to the top level on the PGA Tour. I took exception to Johnny's blaming Yang's post-PGA invisibility on missed fairways. I pointed out that while Y.A. does hit the fairway just over 60% (60.56) of the time, Tiger hits only 64%. I left out a more dramatic example of just how irrelevant the "Fairways" stat is - Phil Mickelson, the #2 player in the world, hit only 52% of his fairways in 2009.

But I could not call out Johnny Miller without offering a better explanation for why we aren't hearing more about Yang. The real answer to the question was not easy to find because, unlike Tiger, whose data I retrieve and analyze after every event, I do not have Y.A.'s ShotByShot.com data. As a result, I had to dive into the massive statistical storehouse of the Tour's ShotLink database. If one is fortunate enough to have access to this robust research tool, one can retrieve more bits of data than one can possibly process, and the pieces of the puzzle are in there somewhere....

I started with the old faithful long game measure - Greens-Hit-in-Regulation - the most pertinent of all of the traditional stats, especially at the Tour level. This stat consistently maintains the strongest direct correlation to scoring and winning of all the stats on Tour. Why? Because it signals a lack of errors in the long game and also corresponds to birdie opportunities. Y.A. hit 66% of his greens, just behind Tiger at 68%, and Tiger is ranked 12th on Tour. This only confirmed that Y.A.'s long game was not his major issue.

Next, I looked at the Tour's Scrambling stat. This is the percent of "saves" (par or better) when the player has failed to hit the green in regulation. Not perfect, but a fairly good overall short game barometer. Y.A. saved 58% of these short game opportunities, ranking 91st on Tour - barely better than the Tour average (57.5%). Tiger ranks #1 on Tour at 68% - this is a significant difference.

Finally, I looked at what I believe to be the Tour's best putting stat yet: Total Putting. This stat considers the weighted average (based upon number of opportunities) of six putting stats. The first five are the % 1-putt in each of the following critical ranges: (3-5 feet, 5-10 feet, 10-15 feet, 15-20 feet, 20-25 feet). The sixth is 3-putt avoidance. This is a simple percentage of holes on which a player has 3 or more putts. Again, not perfect, but by far the most representative of overall putting skill that I have seen from the Tour. Y.A. Yang's PGA Tour ranking is 113. This is worse than the PGA Tour average in these categories. By contrast, Tiger, whose putting never looks great based upon the old and useless Putts per GIR, is ranked #8 in this stat.

Bottom line, Johnny - and I'd love the opportunity to discuss this with you - I believe that Y.A Yang has not been as visible among the winners on Tour this year because his short game and putting just don't measure up. Not only does "Average" NOT win on the PGA Tour, these players are rarely ever seen on TV. What I view to be meaningful short game and putting indicators for Y.A. Yang (approximately 50% of the game) are at best average.

Fairways Missed Y.E. Yang's Problem? NOT!

Did anyone hear Johnny Miller comment several times during the recent President's Cup telecast that the reason for Y.E. Yang's lack of visibility lately has been his inability to hit fairways? I did. In fact, I heard him say it several times. The ability to hit fairways is the hallowed traditional measure of golf driving accuracy. But it is also the most one-dimensional and potentially the most misleading of the traditional golf statistics.

Johnny Miller bemoaned the fact that Yang was only hitting 60% of his fairways, and that a tour golfer cannot win tournaments with that kind of performance. What Johnny needs to know is that the PGA Tour average for Fairways Hit is less than 63%, and that Tiger Woods hits just over 64%!

What is the matter with this statistic? Hitting the fairway is, after all, the goal when we stand on the tee of a par 4 or par 5 hole. The problem is that it asks for a simple Yes/No answer to a question that forces us to focus mainly on the Yes. Why? Because conventional wisdom has us believing that ‘Yes, I hit the fairway!’ is the most positive outcome. But think about it – is that really the case? Isn't what happens when we don't hit the fairway so much more impactful on our golf score?

Over the past 18 years ShotByShot.com has analyzed golf performance at every level – including PGA Tour players – and has concluded that hitting or missing fairways is a statistic of limited relevance. Of far greater importance is the character and severity of the miss. Did the ball land just in the light rough, in a bunker, behind a tree (with or without a shot?), disappear in a pond, or worst of all – go lost or OB?

The higher the level of the player’s golf game, the less relevant is the number of fairways hit to improvement or performance. A recent study of performance on the PGA Tour conducted by two professors at Northeastern University in Boston cited the declining importance of driving accuracy due primarily to increasing driving distances. To support this, during his 2007 seven-event winning streak, Tiger Woods hit only 61% of the fairways. In the final event of that streak at Torrey Pines, Tiger hit only 46% of the fairways en route to victory. Of far greater importance was the fact that Tiger’s tee shots resulted in an ERROR in only 2% of his total attempts. (ShotByShot’s definition of ERROR = a penalty, or a shot from which the golfer does not have a normal advancement opportunity.)

In no way do I want to pick on Johnny Miller. I enjoy his insightful and honest commentary - he is arguably the best there is at his job. Further, I had the good fortune of spending some time with him at an LPGA event in the early days of ShotByShot and found him very thoughtful and gracious. I am a fan. That said, his comment exemplifies the pervasive misconceptions that are created by "traditional" golf statistics and why I created something much better in shotbyshot.com. In a future blog, I will delve into some niblicks of truth about what really is to blame for Y. E. Yang's lack of success at the highest level.

Stricker Unveils New Winning Formula

Steve Stricker's one-stroke win in the Deutsche Bank Golf Championship was most impressive for his ability to avoid drama. No part of his long game really stood out except for the fact that he did not make a single error. Steve is long enough (294 yards - ranked 38th), and fairly accurate (10 Fairways Hit - tied for 15th). But what I believe Stricker did the best this week does not show up in the Tour golf stats: none of his 16 missed fairways resulted in errors. I consider an error to be any penalty situation (OB, Lost, Hazard, Unplayable lie, etc.), or any 'No Shot' position from which the golfer cannot proceed normally toward the hole. As good as these players are, a 'No Shot' tends to result in less than a half shot penalty, but is a penalty nonetheless.

TPC Boston does not rival the single-file feel of Liberty National, and for the most part provides room to drive the ball. At the same time, it has a number of hazards and every hole is bordered by dense forest waiting to punish errant drives. Ask Tiger, who had four errors from the tee - two penalty situations and two 'No Shot' results. Add to these uncharacteristic errors, Tiger put a 9-iron approach in the water on #16 (3rd round), and had a 3-putt from 33 feet on #17 in the final round. That just about accounts for Tiger's five shot deficit in this tournament. Any way you look at it, Steve Stricker's error-free driving performance was a key to his victory.

The rest of Stricker's long game was solid. He hit 12.5 greens per round - one less than our ShotByShot.com 2009 PGA Tour Winner's profile. His putting was good by traditional standards (3rd in Putts per GIR), but again not quite as good as our 2009 Winner's profile. What Stricker did very well was save strokes around the greens. Between chipping, pitching and sand shots, Steve averaged just over seven short game opportunities each round. Without a single error (a shot that misses the green - and yes, this does happen on Tour!), Steve holed out from off the green twice, and "Saved" 75% of his short game opportunities. Our Winner's profile saves 70% and the winner will toss in an error 4 of every 100 shot attempts.

Niblicks of Truth's New Formula for Winning:

Long Game - Keep the ball in play off the tee, avoid mistakes and hit 12+ GIR's.
Short Game - Avoid mistakes, and get 75% of opportunites up and down.
Putting - Limit 3-putts to one (Steve had one) and see short game above.

(Focus on this formula - which can be adjusted for different pay grades of golf proficiency - for improvement at any level. Avoiding errors is the key!)

Liberty National: Looked Like a Major

This new golf venue showed itself exceptionally well during the telecasts this weekend. Sadly, for the vast majority of the golfing public, the TV is as close as they will ever get to this ultra-exclusive, private club.

I am fortunate to have played Liberty National late last year, and can report that it is breathtaking. Once you catch your breath, however, and get down to working your way around the golf course, the design features grab your full attention. This golf course is hard!

The designers took advantage of just about every known defense against scoring. Once you are bitten, the obstacles seem to loom larger and more prominently with every hole. First, as the announcers noted, the course was built on a relatively small parcel of land so it is tight, but fairly long at 7,419 yards. (We played about 7,000 which was all we could handle and more.) The fairways are bordered by a combination of water, deep bunkers, long fescue and trees. The greens are well protected by bunkers, false fronts, sides and backs and fairly severe undulations.

Don't get me wrong. Liberty National is not an unfair golf course, but it is demanding, especially off the tees, and it punishes errors sternly. I estimate that the average 10 handicap would need at least six balls to finish a round, and would not leave feeling confident about the overall strength of their game - and that is if they play an appropriate set of tees. My group of grizzled veterans relished the challenge and thoroughly enjoyed the journey. Fortunately we had enough ammo and departed energized by the beauty and competitive experience with only minor bruises to our egos. That said, I was anxious to see how the pro's handled it and admit to taking some pleasure in what Liberty did to the best in the world.

Let's just compare the profile of the winner (Heath Slocum) to that of the winners of non-Major PGA Tournaments in 2009:

Score: Heath's -9 total is six shots higher than the -15.25 average of the 32 prior regular PGA Tour events. By comparison, the four major winners averaged -6.5. Personally, I find the more difficult tests to be much more interesting.

Driving Errors: Heath made three tee shot errors (2 were "No shot" results that required advancements to get the ball back in play and the third was a penalty). The prior winners have averaged approximately one such error in 4 rounds. Tiger, only 1 shot back, made an uncharacteristic six driving errors this week.

GIR's: Heath hit 11.5 greens which was good (tied for 6th). The field at Liberty National averaged an incredibly low 9.9 GIR's while the average of the previous winners is 13.5 GIR's.

Long Game Efficiency*: Heath needed 3+ long game strokes for every green hit in regulation. The previous winners average 2.4 long game strokes for each GIR.

*This refers to our patented method for measuring overall Long Game performance. For a better explanation, log on to www.shotbyshot.com.

As I said, the course is particularly demanding off the tee and punishes errant shots.

Here are two more Niblicks of Truth:
Last week, I wrote about Steve Marino's putting issues - especially in the 6 to 10 foot range. Steve hung near the lead this week until he shot 40 on the final 9 holes to fall into a tie for 15th. While I did not collect and analyze his data, I watched and believe that his putting frustrations finally got to him and affected the rest of his game.

Speaking of that critical 6 to 10 foot range, Tiger made only 5 of 14 (36%). His normal success in this range is 65%. His struggles were punctuated by a miss from 7 feet on the final hole to tie the lead - he really is human!

Wonder if Steve Marino Knows How Close He Was (is) at the Wyndham?

Steve Marino is one of the recognizable newcomers on the PGA Golf Tour but has yet to win. He has made almost $5 million dollars in three years and has gotten very close to victory with two 2nd's and 14 Top-10's. Marino tied for 10th at the Wyndham Championship last weekend and was only three strokes behind the leaders and a play-off. Wouldn't Steve Marino - and the rest of us - like to know where his golf game fell short? Unfortunately his "Key Stats" on the Tour's website were typically vague (see above). To help with the analysis I ran his data through the ShotByShot.com models to see exactly where and why he missed out on his first victory.

Long Game Efficiency:
Steve's long game compared very favorably to the three players that tied for the lead and to our 2009 Winner's Profile ("Winners").
Greens-Hit-in-Regulation: 14 vs 13.75 Winners
Long Game Efficiency Index*: 2.35 vs 2.32 Winners
ShotByShot.com Long Game Handciap: +7 vs. +7 Winners

*This is our patented method of measuring the overall efficiency of a player's long game. For a better explanation, log onto http://www.shotbyshot.com/.

Short Game:

Marino's average short game shots finished within 5 feet of the hole, and he saved 75%. This compares favorably to the Winners database (5.3 feet and 69% saved).

Sand Game:

I am ignoring the Sand game because coincidentally all four of the players analyzed had just one opportunity and simply hit their shots on the green and 2-putted from similar distances.

Putting:
This is where Marino fell short, and the deficiency was especially glaring when I processed his putting data by distance:
ShotByShot.com Putting Handicap: +1 vs. +4 Winners

For putts in the 6 to 10 foot range, Marino made only 2 of 13 (15%) vs. 62% Winners. The three players that tied for the lead at the Wyndham made 65% of their putts in this critical range. (Ironically, the winner - Ryan Moore - was the worst with 8 of 14, or 57%.) Had Steve Marino made just 6 of his 13 opportunities (46%), he would have still been just below the average of the PGA Tour in the 6 to 10 foot range (50%), but he would have secured his 1st victory by 1 shot!

The PGA - Tiger will be fine, but I worry about Padraig Harrington

OK, so Tiger Woods just lost his first major golf tournament while in the lead after 3 rounds. It had to happen at some point but if it weren't for a very solid round by an unlikely candidate, Tiger was on track for #15. All of the usual subjects were playing by the script and had quietly disappeared by the 9th hole. Only Y.E. Yang was happy to hang around the lead with Tiger. He gave golf's #1 player a bit of his own medicine when he chipped in for eagle on #14 and Tiger was forced to hole an 8 foot, birdie putt just to stay one behind - big sigh of relief around my TV.

After Yang played a poor pitch to the par-5, 15th and Tiger failed to make a 12 foot birdie putt (again!), I submit that Mr. Yang came very close to the "C" word and to giving the tournament away. Not once, but twice.

1st: On the difficult 16th, he made the unthinkable mistake by missing his approach to the right of the flag tucked on the right side of the green, precariously close to the hazard. The gods shined on Y.A. as the ball barely caught the fringe and stuck. Another two feet to the right and his ball most certainly would have bounced into the hazard - Tiger wins!

2nd: On #17, with a 2-putt for par, albeit from about 40 feet, Yang would almost certainly have gained a 2 stroke lead. But he left his lag putt 8 feet short and missed - bogey. Again, he was saved because Tiger's aggressive approach bounced just over the green and into a very difficult lie resulting in his bogey.

So what happened to Tiger? A combination of three things:

1. He simply had "one of those days" on the greens. After he mis-read the 6-foot birdie putt on #1 and burned the edge on #2 from 14 feet for birdie - both putts that he (and the rest of us) expect him to make - I believe he began to doubt his reads. On the back 9 alone, I calculate that Tiger missed six of seven putts inside 14 feet. Each one was either a very minor mis-read or hit a bit too hard or soft, or a combination thereof.

2. Hats off to Nick Faldo who, at the start of the telecast, predicted that the strong, gusting crosswinds would give Tiger difficulty. And they did. They were certainly the primary cause of the missed greens on 17 and 18. Under the circumstances, Tiger was forced to be aggressive and and the gusting winds made it almost impossible to be as precise as he needed to be. Again, Tiger's uncertainty on the tee at the difficult, par-3 8th hole led to another missed green and bogey. And this is just to list the obvious ones.

3. Y. A. Yang handled the conditions and the pressure extremely well.

Aquaphobia! I bet Padraig Harrington will be nervous taking a shower.
Astonishingly, for the second week in a row Padraig literally drowned his chances of a win. His meltdown that resulted in an eight on the par-3 8th hole on Sunday was difficult to watch. To make matters worse, the network chose to splice in the prior week's mistake.

Here is a niblick of perspective: the average golfer on the PGA Tour will miss the green from within 50 yards of the flag approximately six percent of the time - 6 of every 100 opportunities. This ShotByShot.com stat includes all shots and all degrees of difficulty. Granted, Padraig was faced with two very difficult opportunities, but not only are missed greens infrequent for a PGA Tour player, a miss that results in a penalty is so rare that I don't even track it.

It is often said that the great ones must have short memories. But these two dramatic wounds have to leave deep scars for Padraig. I will be interested to see how he deals with it, and as a fan, I am rooting for him to prevail.

An 8 Iron Hit 182 Yards to 1 Foot - What Are the Odds?

In a recent post, I wrote about Tiger Woods' blueprint for winning golf tournaments. I referred to one of the key Tiger intangibles as "the shot," or his ability to transcend talent and conjure up magic when he most needs it. This week it was the 182 yard approach shot to the par 5, 16th green at Firestone South.

The stage was set perfectly as Tiger was one down to Padraig Harrington. Both had hit poor drives requiring layups to awkward positions, if not distances. Tiger was in the fairway, but much further back than he would have wanted, especially considering that the pin was cut in the front of the green and very close to the water. Under the circumstances, to hit and hold the green would have been considered a great golf shot. Here are a few niblicks of perspective on exactly how magical his shot to 1 foot should be considered:

1. % Greens Hit in Regulation from 175 to 200 yards: 2009 YTD, Tiger has hit the green from this distance with 61% of his attempts (Rank #16). The average of the PGA Tour is 54%.

2. Proximity to the Pin from 175 - 200 yards. 2009 YTD, Tiger averages 29 feet (Rank #1). PGA Tour average: 34 feet.

Let's step back and analyze this. Tiger is one of the best on tour from this distance range. But even then, he only hits the green 61% of the time and leaves an average putting distance of 29 feet.

How does this compare to the rest of us mortal golfers? Our Shotbyshot.com statistical database tells us that from a distance of 181 to 190 yards, in the fairway, the 10 handicap golfer would hit the green 38% of the time. Imagine what that number would be when faced with a similar challange - 1 down on #16 over water, etc., I'd wager that 38% drops to under 10%!

How Important is 5 Feet?

During the Buick Invitational Sunday telecast, the announcers mentioned more than once that Tiger Woods had made 100% of his putts inside 5 feet - 40 out of 40 for the golf tournament. On his 41st attempt the "announcer's curse" did not get him, and he continued the streak on his 42nd attempt. Unfortunately, I lost the recording due to lightning so did not hear if they continued coverage of this aspect of Tiger's performance. Nevertheless, thanks to ShotLink I was able to confirm that he remained perfect from this distance for an event total of 49 out of 49 putting attempts from inside 5 feet.

Our ShotByShot.com data long ago revealed that 5 feet is a magic distance and that it warrants appropriate attention and practice time. Tiger has obviously figured this out, too, and has spent time making sure that he maximizes these key opportunities. We can all learn from his consistent and committed approach to these critical putts.

Tiger exhibits a consistent approach and highly practiced routine. But as with just about everything, there is an important added variable. I believe Tiger chooses the appropriate speed for each putt that maximizes the size of the hole in that particular instance. In the past, most of the greats have become known generally as "die it in the holers" (Nicklaus) or "aggressive" (Watson in his prime). Tiger is not consistently in one mode or the other. Rather, he adjusts his speed to match each specific opportunity. This tactic alone is not totally unusual but Tiger's unique ability to remain committed to the line and speed chosen for each putt is part of his greatness.

Here is what I take away from Tiger's example:

1. Practice putts in the 3, 4 and 5 foot range. The "Star Drill" is a good one and is described in the FAQ's & More section of the Golfer Home page of the ShotByShot.com website. (If you're not already a subscriber, you can register for a free trial subscription to access this part of the site.)
2. Categorize these putts (as with all lengths) as green, yellow and red light opportunities. Build this into your practice routine.
Green light - Uphill: be aggressive as there is little or no chance of a 3-putt. A firmer, more aggressive line will serve to increase the relative size of the hole and your percentage made.
Yellow light - Slightly side-hill: medium speed will tend to hold your intended line but not run away if you miss.
Red light - Downhill or downhill/side-hill: plan to die the ball over the lip and play all the break that is needed to do so.

Obviously, if you are in a match play situation and the next putt matters not, you should adjust your categories accordingly. Let me know how this works for your game!

The Problem with Traditional Golf Statistics

Niblicks of Truth is all about the right and wrong answers that can result from the use - and misuse - of golf statistics. One of the most frequently-asked questions from prospective users of our ShotByShot golf game analysis program is: “How can you tell me what I need to know about my tee game if you don’t track Fairways Hit?” At the risk of harping, whenever I hear this question I know that it's time to point out some of the flaws in traditional golf statistics.

In my view the main reason that traditional statistics don’t work is because golf is a multifaceted game, played in three dimensions – up, down, right, left, long and short. It cannot be properly represented by flat, YES or NO answers to one-dimensional questions. Here are some of my favorite examples:

Fairways Hit
This may be the best example of the shortcoming of traditional stats. Did a golfer hit the fairway – or not? With traditional stats, a YES answer is always presumed to be a better outcome than a NO answer. But is this correct? Which would you rather have – a drive that ends up only 175 yards out but in the middle of the fairway, or a 275 yard rocket that ends up in the first cut of rough? And if you miss the fairway, wouldn’t you prefer the 275 yard rocket over a ball hit Out of Bounds or Lost? The Fairways Hit stat treats those two misses equally.

Greens-in-regulation (GIR’s)
This is by far the most useful of the old-world stats because a YES tells us something definite and positive about the way that hole was played. There are two problems, however. First, most amateurs do not hit very many greens. The average, male 18 handicapper will hit less than 4 of 18 greens each round. Along with this, there is no indication of what happened - or how bad the miss was - on all of those other holes. So a big part of the story goes untold.

Sand Saves
Also known as a 1-putt following a greenside sand shot, the Sand Save stat actually encompasses two facets of the game – sand play and putting. Because it is a blend of the two, it can mask an unusual strength or weakness in one area or the other.

Unfortunately traditional stats ignore the rest of the short game, which usually comprises a far greater number of shots per round. And again, traditional stats tell a golfer nothing useful about the shots that miss the green.

# Putts per Round
This statistic is relatively easy to keep but has a major flaw in that it ignores the distances of the putting opportunities. A 2-putt from 3 feet counts exactly the same as a 2-putt from 75 feet. It’s like balancing your checkbook based upon the number of checks you wrote, and ignoring the amount. Not very helpful…

If anything I am saying here makes sense, and you believe that the ability to measure performance is a key component to improving your golf game, then the ShotByShot game analysis program is for you. Go to http://www.shotbyshot.com/ and check out the Free Trial.

How Has Tiger Woods Changed Golf - and Tiger?

With apologies to UJ, here's another entry about Tiger Woods. Hey, he is #1 in the WORLD!

Tiger clearly changed the look of the landscape in golf when he escalated the concept of training and fitness in golf to a new level. I remember when we were told by the "experts" that weight training would destroy our flexibility and inhibit our ability to make full swings. Today the winners are extremely fit. A good example is Lee Westwood. Five years ago Lee was a rolly-polly dough boy compared to the athlete that we saw contending for the Open title. This level of complete commitment to the sport is now much more the rule than the exception.

I am not the first to write about Tiger's routine but I did some research and found some interesting niblicks about what he has accomplished physiologically, and what he does to maintain his physical edge.

As a baseline, I learned that Tiger left Stanford in 1996 standing 6 foot, 2 and weighing 158 pounds. He has since put on 30 pounds of muscle. According to Tiger's website, his daily routine is as follows, and I have read elsewhere that it is repeated six days a week:

6:30 a.m. - One hour of cardio. Choice between endurance runs, sprints or biking

7:30 a.m. - One hour of lower weight training. 60-70 percent of normal lifting weight, high reps and multiple sets

8:30 a.m. - High protein/low-fat breakfast. Typically includes egg-white omelet with vegetables

9:00 a.m. - Two hours on the golf course. Hit on the range and work on swing

11:00 a.m. - Practice putting for 30 minutes to an hour

Noon - Play nine holes

1:30 p.m. - High protein/low-fat lunch. Typically includes grilled chicken or fish, salad and vegetables

2:00 p.m. - Three-to-four hours on the golf course. Work on swing, short game and occasionally play another nine holes

6:30 p.m. - 30 minutes of upper weight training. High reps

7:00 p.m. - Dinner and rest

(see http://web.tigerwoods.com/fitness/tigerDailyRoutine)

Does this make you rethink your routine? I know I am rethinking mine!

Unfortunately 3 Handicaps Don't Win Major Golf Tournaments

It almost seems cruel to dwell on what undoubtedly cost Tom Watson the British Open instead of all the positives about his amazing golf accomplishment. But as always, the numbers tell an interesting story - loudly and clearly!

First, I really am (and long have been) a fan of Tom Watson. We are contemporaries and I watched and cheered for most of his victories. As a 14 handicap golfer, I bought and devoured his book "Getting Up and Down with Tom Watson" and it changed my game, my attitude and my handicap, dramatically. On 9/10/2002, I played in a golf event that featured Tom, and I had the thrill of a lengthy chat with him during an extended rain delay. In my opinion, he long ago set a new standard for performance and behavior on and off the golf course. Further, the way he handled everything about this Open week should be carefully documented and studied by everyone in and out of golf, but especially those that aspire to compete in the public's eye.

As the Open is the purview of the R & A, there is no ShotLink data, and even the traditional Fairways, Greens and puttting statistics are unavailable. No worries - due to his outstanding play, the telecasts treated us to every shot Tom hit in the final round, so I recorded it and captured his Shot By Shot data for analysis.

Tom's long game was easily that of a champion. In the final round, he made no real mistakes (until the playoff) and hit 12 Greens-in-Regulation (I counted 2 routine putts from the fringe as GIR's). Handicap: +5

Chip/Pitch shots - Certainly not the Tom Watson of old, his six opportunities averaged just over 10 feet from the hole with only half hit to within 5 feet of the cup. Handicap: 0

Sand shots - Only 1 shot hit to 9 feet. Handicap: +1

Putting - Tom had no 3-putts in the final round and made a relatively long one from 28 feet on the par 3 11th hole. He also did not miss any short putts but his undoing was in the "makeable" ranges from 4 to 20 feet where he made only 1 of his 10 opportunities. Wisha-coulda-shoulda, but if he had just made one more of these putts he would have completed the miracle. Here's a sad niblick of truth: If Tom's performance had only been equal to the average putting performance of the PGA Tour, he would have made 4 out of those 10 putts, and finished the British Open with a two-stroke margin of victory. Handicap: 3

How Does Tiger Do It?

Any way he can! As an admitted statistical stalker of the World's #1, I have studied Tiger's Shot By Shot golf performance closely since he established his dominance in 1999. At the risk of restating the obvious, his win at Congressional was another example of Tiger's winning blueprint:

Long Game Efficiency
Tiger hits more greens in regulation and uses fewer long game shots in the process than his peers. At Congressional, Tiger averaged 13.75 GIR's and needed 33.15 long strokes (shots from outside 50 yards). Our PGA Tour Winner's profile averages 13 GIR's and 33.5 long strokes - and Congressional was a far cry from Tiger's best long game performance.

The difference goes beyond just hitting on or close to more par 5's in two. It is also Tiger's unique ability to avoid or mitigate mistakes. It is not that he hits no wayward shots in his long game - he does. But what separates him is his combination of power, creativity and shot-making. Outcomes that are errors for most of his peers just aren't for Tiger. More often than not, he is able to come up with the recovery shot that puts him back in position to make par or better.

Avoid the Bad Round
Rarely does a player cruise through an event hitting on all cylinders for four rounds like Kenny Perry did last week at the Travelers. Over and over again, Tiger has shown the ability to manage his "bad" rounds into a acceptable number. This week it was his 3rd round 70 that kept him in contention.

The "Shot"
This is the intangible that Tiger seems to own. It is the impossible chip that topples in the hole on the 13th green at the Masters, and all the long putts to win on the 18th green at Bay Hill. The list is long and growing. These game-changing shots happen for or to others once or twice in their careers. Greg Norman's string of bad luck on the receiving end of these shots comes to mind. But I can't remember Tiger ever being the victim of a miracle shot - please let me know if I missed one. On the contrary, Tiger does it to the field routinely.

In my opinion, this week's "Shot" came in the form of a 20 foot putt on the par-5, 16th hole. Hunter Mahan was in the house at 12 under where he had been since Tiger bogeyed the 11th hole, leaving him in a tie with Mahan. Tiger's best opportunity to regain the lead was the reachable 16th, but when he missed the green with his 2nd, he was confronted with a terrible, green-side lie in deep rough. His chip stopped 20 feet short and we know the rest - he rolled it in for birdie to snatch the lead.

That putt will not take a place at the top of Tiger's miracle list but - situation aside - let's examine the odds. Here are some niblicks from the Tour putting stats: 1) The average percent of putts made on the PGA Tour from 20 to 25 feet is 1 in 8, or 12%. 2) The 2009 YTD leader from this distance (Kevin Na) is 1 in 5, or 21.5%. 3) Of very little significance is that YTD Tiger is 2 of 30 (6.7%) - half the Tour average. Wouldn't we like to see Tiger's numbers filtered by WHEN IT REALLY COUNTS? Maybe I will take that statistical analysis on one of these days.

Kenny Perry Sets a New Putting Bar

Despite a 3-putt - albeit from 53 feet - Kenny Perry's putting performance was the best yet logged into our 2009 Tour Winner's database. Brian Gay set the previous mark by making 53% of the 70 1st-putt opportunities that he faced at the St. Jude Golf Classic in Memphis AND without a 3-putt.

Kenny had 71 1st putt chances and only made 46% and, as stated, recorded a single 3-putt in his final round. How then could his putting performance be considered better? As I have written many times, it is the DISTANCE that counts NOT the total number of putts. The average starting distance of Kenny's putts for the week was almost 7 feet further from the hole than Brian Gay's.

Kenny Perry 17 feet vs. Brian Gay 10 feet
This 7 foot difference is extremely important because even the best of the best golfers on the PGA Tour see their "make" percentage fall off rapidly outside 10 feet. Kenny Perry separated himself in the 11 - 30 foot range where he made 12 of 35 attempts (34%). The Tour average would be 9, or 26%. Coincidently, Kenny's three stroke difference exactly matches his margin of victory.

Two key niblicks of truth about Kenny's 3-putt: First, it is not at all unusual for the winner on the PGA Tour to have one. Our 2009 Winners 3-putt once in every 100 attempts (1%). Most of the 3-putts fall in the 50+ foot range like Kenny's. Second, more than one 3-putt, however, generally results in not winning a tournament. Our 2009 Top-10 profile, comprised of players usually only 2 or 3 shots away from winning, 3-putts 2% of their opportunities.

What should we mere mortal golfers take from all this? Nothing too profound, except the advice that on those days when your putter is "hot" and you are seeing and feeling the line, take advantage of it - they don't come along very often.

Nick Taylor is Low Amateur at Bethpage

Congratulations to Nick Taylor, the low amateur in last weekend's US Open golf tournament at Bethpage Black. Nick, one of only three amateurs to make the cut thanks to an impressive second round score of 65, finished +8 overall for the tournament, and tied for 36th place. Well done, Nick!

Nick is a member of the Canadian National golf team, and his stellar performance at Bethpage solidifies his #1 standing in the R&A World Amateur Golf rankings. Nick is a long-time student of Henry Brunton, a Master Professional and Top 100 Instructor. Henry is also one of the world's leading experts in the development of junior golfers. He preaches that measurement is an important part of development and improvement in golf, and has over 200 private students actively using the ShotByShot.com game analysis program. In addition, all of the Canadian National teams have used ShotByShot.com since its inception.

ShotByShot.com is proud to think that our game analysis program has played a part in the development of such fine young players as Nick Taylor, and his Canadian National teammate, Matt Hill, who recently won the NCAA golf chamionship.

For more about Henry Brunton's innovative approach to developing junior golfers, see http://www.henrybrunton.com/index.php.

To learn more about how the ShotByShot.com game analysis program can help you shape and achieve your own personal golf improvement goals, go to www.ShotByShot.com.

Glover's 16 Seconds to US Open Victory: The Importance of a Pre-Shot Routine in Golf

Lucas Glover's win at BethPage was an excellent example of the importance of a solid pre-shot routine, and the pay-off for golfers who have a consistent regimen. He had a few stumbles early in round 4, but hung on and played well on the final holes under extreme pressure. I paid close attention to his pre-shot routine, noted how well he stuck with it down the stretch, and believe that it was the difference at the end.

A well constructed pre-shot routine accomplishes two important purposes. The first is physical. It creates the platform for a successful shot - proper setup and alignment. The second is mental in that the routine occupies the conscious mind with a rehearsed set of positive thoughts that lead to a trigger. This is the part that helps ward off the negative effects of pressure. It creates a mental suit of armour against the doubts that can creep in and derail the shot-making process. Lucas took a consistent 16 seconds from the time he stepped forward from behind the ball until he struck each shot - full swings and putts.

While I do not pretend to know what he was thinking, here is what it looked like to me:

Shot selection - First, Lucas and his caddie would go through the decision making process and agree on the exact shot called for.

Visualization - Then from behind the ball, looking down the line at the target he would visualize the exact flight of the ball as planned.

Start - Next, he moved forward to address the ball - tick tock, tick tock.

Alignment - (to the target and proper ball position) 1) He'd place the club behind the ball aimed directly at the intermediate target. 2) Then he set up to the club and the ball.

Posture - Check posture and balance: spine straight, head high, arms relaxed and hanging.

Trigger - One quick waggle to loosen the hands and forearms & GO!

Coincidently, a close friend with whom I play a lot of golf recently asked if I would help him develop a routine in preparation his club championship. We spent two separate sessions at the range working on just this. Together, we developed a pattern of well-choreographed moves to insure that he is properly lined up to the target; standing tall to give him plenty of room to swing freely and release the club; and a waggle-trigger to start his backswing with his torso. While I did not subject him to a stop watch, I did tap my foot and count the seconds so that he could become comfortable with the tempo and timing of his new routine.

So far, he has qualified and won 3 matches and has the 36-hole finals this weekend. Two of the three matches were against better players, at least according to the USGA, and Tom credits the confidence in his routine for helping him prevail. I will be able to observe our work closely while I caddie for him in the finals. Good luck Tommy and stick to your routine!

Aussie Rules

Greg Norman has a new toy. It is a 228-foot boat called Aussie Rules. It is among the largest private yachts in existence. Apparently it cost more than $70 million dollars to build. The company that built it gave it to Greg at cost because they wanted the publicity of The Shark sailing their product. They are rumored to actually have taken a loss on the deal - for the moment. If this motivates you to work harder on your golf game, try re-reading some of my prior posts on the importance of practice in the improvement process. Here's a good one:
http://niblicksoftruth.blogspot.com/2009/05/approach-to-practice.html

Or if you're not sure what part of your game needs the most attention, perhaps it's time to try a game analysis program. If you want the most accurate assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of your golf game, go to http://www.ShotByShot.com. Remember, knowledge is power!

Brian Gay: Putting for Dough!

Throughout the telecast of the St. Jude Classic on Sunday, Ian Baker Finch, once known as a great putter himself, commented on how the strength of Brian Gay's game was clearly putting. Ian made an excellent point to note that Brian had NO 3-Putts at that point in the telecast, and, true to his reputation, Brian did not let this comment jinx him into a stumble down the stretch.

Brian Gay finished five shots clear of his closest rivals and it was clearly his putting that was the difference. He was ranked #1 and #2 respectively in the old standby golf statistics - Putts per GIR (1.538) and Total Putts Per Round (25.0). I am no fan of these stats, but in this case Brian's performance was outstanding enough to drag them into relevance. Before we look more closely at his putting, his other stats support the point that the remainder of his game was solid but not spectacular.

As was said over and over again during the telecast (there was no drama to this ending so they had to fill the last 2 hours of air time with something), "Brian's game is not long but very accurate and consistent and he is a great putter." And the Tour stats bear this out.

• Driving Accuracy: T9th - (71%), quite good, averaging 10 of 14 fairways. More importantly, none of his missed fairways could be considered an ERROR (Penalty situation or poor enough result that it required a pure advancement shot to recover.)
• Driving Distance: 76th (266 yards - short by today's standards.)
• Greens in Reg.: T19 (12.25/round). I am more accustomed to seeing 13+ from the winner.
• Sand Saves: T24 (6/9, or 66.6%) with 1 ERROR (a shot left in the bunker). Winners are usually 70% or better with no errors.
• Scrambling: 65%, and again, lower than the usual Winner's profile.

Thus far, Brian's profile is not matching up to what I would expect from a Winner on the PGA Tour. This is where his putting prowess separates him and particularly from outside 10 feet where the averages for EVERYONE including the PGA Tour fall off rapidly. Note, in the above graphic which compares Brian's 1-Putt % to the average for the Tour (YTD 2009). Combine the fact that he had ZERO 3-Putts, his putting accuracy from 11 to 30 feet was remarkable. Had Brian putted no better than his peers in this range alone, he would have finished six shots higher and tied for 3rd.

Big Ben's the Boss

Golf Digest's US Open Challenge was held yesterday at Bethpage Black. This now-annual event grew out of a comment made by Tiger Woods several years ago after the US Open was held at Oakmont. Tiger, so impressed by the difficulty of the course, challenged that a 10-handicap golfer couldn't break 100 there. Three celebrities known to be accomplished golfers, and a contest winner from Arizona, put Bethpage to the test.

Here's how they did:

Roethlisberger +11
Jordan +16
Timberlake +18
"Larry" +31

Roethlisberger led the group shooting 81 on the par 70 Bethpage Black course yesterday, but was awed. "Every golf course we play from now on will seem easy," he said after the round. Jordan was second with an 86, and Timberlake followed with an 88. Larry - representing all earthly golfers - shot 101. Had it not been for a fateful 10 on the 16th hole, Larry would have broken 100 as well. "But that's the way it is. Life goes on," was his philosophical post-mortem. We feel you, Larry!

For more insights on the day of fun at Farmingdale, go to: http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/usopencontest/2009/06/usopen_challenge_weinman_0612

For more perspective on how the course and the set-up at Bethpage Black differs from your weekend track, check out my prior post on this blog:

http://niblicksoftruth.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-tough-will-bethpage-black-be.html

Three-Putts in Golf: How Many are Too Many?

We've talked about how putting well is critical to scoring well in golf. Most golfers know that 3-putts are the enemy when you are trying to pull together a good score. It is important, however, to set realistic goals and expectations based on your skill level. Before you beat yourself up excessively, use the chart below to tell you how many three-putts a round are made by the average golfer in your handicap band.

HANDICAP RANGE	# 3-PUTTS/ROUND
0 to 5	0.8
6 to 10	1.1
11 to 15	1.4
16 to 25	2.1
26 to 35	3.4

If you are at or below that number on average, relax and move on when it happens. If you are above the target, consider taking a putting lesson from your pro. Get a simple basic stroke that you can repeat over and over, and ask for a few practice drills that you can use to work on your own.

How Tough Will Bethpage Black Be?

As we are about to watch the second US Open at Bethpage Black, I bet a lot of viewers will be wondering: “How much more difficult is this golf course that what my group plays on weekends?”

Golf Digest picked up on this last year and started the US Open Contest wherein four celebrity amateur golfers attempted to break 100. This contest grew out of a comment by Tiger Woods that the previous year’s course (Oakmont) was so hard that “… a 10 handicap couldn’t break 100 there.” Tiger was right – the 10 handicap shot 114. Tiger is clearly the best at his craft, but is he also clairvoyant? I’ll try to describe why this was a very safe prediction for Tiger to make.

Personal experience

In 2002, I played Bethpage Black on the last day before it closed for US Open grooming – boy, do I have some good friends. My group consisted of four low handicap golfers ranging from 2 to 5. We approached the round with great confidence, each anxious to see how well we would do. Five+ hours later, we emerged battered and exhausted and were all shocked at how brutal and relentlessly difficult we found the course. One of my friends said it perfectly: “I have never played so many par 5’s in my life!”

What makes an Open so hard?

Let’s do a statistical comparison of US Open venue, Bethpage Black (BPB) to the average courses played by ShotByShot.com’s male subscribers (AVG):

Total Yards / Par

· BPB: 7,426 / 70 = 106 yards per par stroke

· AVG: 6,400 / 71.5 = 89 yards per par stoke

Course rating: (The score that the scratch golfer should shoot)

· BPB: 78 (an educated guess as I have not seen it published)

· AVG: 71.5

Slope rating: (The relative difficulty for the “average” golfer)

· BPB: 155 (another educated guess but with confidence)

· AVG: 131

What do these numbers mean?

Chew on these niblicks: Bethpage Black is at least 6.5 shots harder for the scratch golfer and 11 shots harder for the bogey golfer. This means that the average male 18 handicap golfer that averages 92 with his group on weekends would average 103, and I believe this may be significantly understated.

In addition to the obvious difference in length, there are several other important conditions (that most of us will, thankfully, never see) to consider:

1. The typical fairway width of 30-40 yards is cut in half for a US Open setup (30 - 40 yards).
2. The rough height is generally twice the height that we amateurs face (from 2.5 – 3 inches and up in places vs. 1 to 1.5 inches at home).
3. Finally, the greens at an Open are usually very firm and fast making them unreceptive to shots from the rough, not to mention difficult to putt.

While you enjoy watching the professionals struggle for pars in a US Open, bear in mind how much more difficult the conditions are than what we typically play on weekends. Finally, if you ever get the chance to test your game on a US Open prepared course, get ready for the shock of your golfing life.

More on Short Putts

Practice makes perfect. Too bad it is so tedious. But it is really important if you want to improve your golf game. And there is no area of the game where your time and effort will yield more pay-off (in every way!) than with short putts. Confidence in this area will take pressure off of the rest of your golf game, and consistent success will drive your opponents crazy!

Here's a statistic you can use: for golfers at every level putting represents approximately 40% of their strokes per round. Putting offers a premium improvement opportunity because of the relatively low correlation between proficiency and physical strength/flexibility/coordination. With regular and focused work on the practice green, most golfers can shave 3-5 strokes off of their average golf score.

I’d suggest that you do what the pros do and divide putting into two separate categories: lag putts, and short strokes. A different mindset applies to each. Let’s tackle the short ones today.

Short Strokes
A short stroke is any putt that starts close enough to the hole that distance should not be a factor even if you miss. Practice a stroke especially for the job at hand. One of the most common causes of misses is deceleration due to last-second “result anxiety.” A good image is to picture a croquet wicket spanning the width of the hole. Make a stroke that will put the ball through the wicket. Remember this niblick of truth: 100% of putts that stop short of the hole will NOT end up in the hole.

Something that I struggle with is how to simulate the pressure of that "must make" short putt on the practice green. First, let’s define short. Even the average PGA tour golfer has to get inside 3 feet before he can expect to make 95% of his putts. The pros make just 50% of their 8 foot putts, and only 30% of their 12 foot putts, so make your improvement targets achievable.

Try placing five golf balls in a “must make” circle around a hole - preferably one with some slope. Don't let the session end until you have holed out all five balls. When you've mastered that, you can increase either the number of the balls or the distance from the hole (or both). You will be limited by your patience and the time you have available, but trust me, that final putt has a way of becoming quite real. But a key component of this drill is to build confidence, not frustration, so be sure you are starting with an achievable distance.

For more specific analysis of your putting performance, go to www.ShotByShot.com.

Tiger does it again – How does he do it?

More heroics for the Tiger Woods fans’ scrapbook. A spectacular closing golf round of 65 capped off by birdies on 3 of the last four holes and the now almost expected finish - a mid-iron from 183 yards, up hill to 1’ 2” and then sinking the birdie putt he needed to win by one. If it had been 18 feet, we all know that the outcome would have been the same.

What really won the Memorial for Tiger? First, let’s agree that Jack’s course is the most difficult non-major venue. As I believe Mark Lye said during the Golf Channel coverage: “There are lot’s of X’s waiting out there.” Not only lost balls in the lush woods that line every fairway but WATER and lots of it. The stream that meanders through Jack’s property comes fully into play on 11 of the 18 holes and is a factor near or around 9 of the 18 greens.

Some years ago I had the opportunity to walk Muirfield, following Jack for all 18 holes of the Wednesday ProAm. I was fortunate to be able to get close to almost every tee and get a golfer’s eye view of the shots presented. They are relentlessly daunting and intimidating! Much more so than even the TPC Sawgrass.

OK, we’re in agreement – Muirfield is a very hard golf course. Tiger worked his way around Jack’s labyrinth flawlessly. He was 2^nd in Fairways Hit – not a golf statistic that I normally like – but in this case it is meaningful. Although the rough was cut lower, there are almost no good places to land a tee shot that are not in the fairway. Of equal importance, in Tiger’s seven fairways missed there was not a single mistake or penalty situation. The closest Tiger came to an error off the tee was on the Par 5, 7^th hole in the 3^rd round. His tee shot found a deep fairway bunker from which he could only advance the ball 140 yards leaving him 159 from the green. No worries from there as he hit the green and 2-putted from 15 feet for par.

Once safely in play off the tee, Tiger did what winners tend to do – he hit greens. He was tied for 3^rd in this important statistic, averaging 13.25 GIR’s per round. Never one to diminish Tiger’s short game or putting but in my opinion, on this difficult golf course, it was Tiger’s long game that was clearly the difference. One more point, Tiger’s win was made possible by another very Jack-like feat. He managed the 2^nd round, when he was not playing particularly well (only hitting 11greens), to an acceptable 74. Another trait of the best of the best, they find away to fight through the “bad” days.

Not the Whole Truth: The Problem with Traditional Golf Statistics

My father was an engineer. He taught me that numbers are your friend, and that they don't lie. I took up golf seriously 25 years ago and became determined to improve. I started tracking the statistics that I read about in the golf magazines: Fairways Hit, Greens-in-Regulation, Sand Saves and Total Putts.

I quickly became frustrated as I encountered two major problems. The numbers are not always your friend, and while they don't lie, they don't always tell the whole truth.

First, the only numbers I had to compare myself against were those published for the PGA Tour. As a 14 handicap, these numbers were not friendly - the tour golfers were obviously playing a dramatically different game from mine. Second, even using these statistics to compare my own best and worst rounds was of limited value. I found that there was at times a disconnect between my statistical performance and my scoring performance.
And as I said, traditional golf statistics don’t lie - they just don't give the whole truth. This is because golf is a multifaceted game, played in three dimensions – up, down, right, left, long and short. But unfortunately, traditional statistics provide flat, YES or NO answers to one-dimensional questions. Here are some niblicks of truth to nibble on:
Fairways Hit:

This may be the best example of a flawed traditional golf stat. It asks for a true/false answer to what should be a multiple choice question. Think about it. In traditional stats, a YES answer (Fairway Hit) is always presumed to be a better outcome than a NO answer (Fairway Missed). But is this correct? Which would you rather have – a drive that ends up 175 yards out in the middle of the fairway, or a 275 yard rocket that ends up in the first cut of rough? And if you do miss the fairway, wouldn’t you prefer the 275 yard rocket over a ball hit Out of Bounds or Lost? The Fairways Hit stat treats those two outcomes as equals.
Greens-in-regulation (GIR’s):
This may be traditional golf stats at their best because a YES tells us something definite and positive about that hole. As we all know, hitting a green in regulation is a true accomplishment! There are two problems, however. First, most amateurs do not hit very many. The average male 18-handicap golfer will hit less than 4 of 18 greens per round. Second, the stat gives no "color" on all those other holes - what happened? How bad was it?

Sand Saves:

A Sand Save = a 1-putt following a greenside sand shot. The problem with this statistic is that it encompasses two facets of the golf game – sand play and putting. Since the two skills are blended into one stat, it can mask issues (or excellence) in one skill vs. the other.

Unfortunately, traditional golf statistics also ignore the rest of the short game. And this is usually a far greater number of shots per round since everyone isn't always approaching the green from a sand trap - although sometimes it might not feel that way.

# Putts per Round:
This stat is relatively easy to keep but has a major flaw in that it ignores the distances of the putting opportunities. A 2-putt from 3 feet counts exactly the same as a 2-putt from 75 feet. Would you balance your checkbook just based upon the number of checks you wrote? Let’s hope not!

ShotByShot.com represents my solution to the issues with traditional golf statistics. Visit www.ShotByShot.com for friendly numbers that tell the whole truth and will help you improve your golf game.

Is Greenside Sand still a “Trap”? Not on the PGA Tour!

I think Jack Nicklaus was on to something when he had his sand “traps” groomed with special large-tooth rakes at the Memorial. These unique rakes create large enough furrows so that the ball often comes to rest in a place from which even the best in the world cannot precisely control their shot out.

Why would Jack have the audacity to inflict this hardship on the new generation of Touring Professional? Because he wanted to put some “teeth” or downside back into the sand trap – after all it signifies a target missed. He obviously recognizes that in our modern era the sand is so finely groomed and so consistent that the “save” is far more the rule than the exception to the point where the sand trap is many times the desired target when a player is faced with an approach shot from which they may not be able to hit and hold the green itself.

Let’s look at some recent evidence that supports Jack’s position (and mine) from the Crown Plaza Invitational at Colonial CC in Fort Worth, TX. I captured the ShotByShot data of the three players that tied for the lead and played off and threw in Zach Johnson (T-9^th) for good measure. This admittedly “hot” group found 24 greenside bunkers and got up-and-down 20 times (83%) and without a single mistake (shot that did not finish on the green). Steve Marino topped the list at 100% saves (6 for 6) with an average putting distance of just outside 5 feet. Perhaps we should scrap the term “Sand Trap” and refer to these collections of sand as “Safety Zones.”

Congratulations to Matt Hill!

Matt Hill, a member of Team Canada and a sophomore at NC State, just captured the NCAA golf championship. Matt is a long time student of our longest and largest ShotByShot.com supporter, Henry Brunton. Henry, a Master Professional and Top-100 golf instructor, has been the Canadian National golf team coach for over 10 years. Henry is also one of the world's leading experts in the development of junior golfers.

Henry Brunton preaches that measurement is an important part of development and improvement in golf, and has over 200 private students actively using the ShotByShot.com game analysis program. In addition, all of the Canadian National teams have used ShotByShot.com since its inception.

I first met Matt Hill when he was an aspiring young high school player under Henry Brunton's tutelage. I won't claim that ShotByShot.com deserves credit for his recent success, but I am exceedingly proud that it has played a part in his development as a golfer. To read more about Matt's impressive victory, go to http://www.rcga.org/news_details.aspx?ID=1915

For more about Henry Brunton's innovative approach to developing junior golfers, see http://www.henrybrunton.com/index.php

To learn more about how ShotByShot.com analysis can help you achieve your personal golf goals, check out www.ShotByShot.com

What if Rory Sabbatini Putted Like the Average Golfer?

The good news: with a more mortal putting performance – adding an extra eight strokes per round on the greens – Rory Sabbatini would have still made the cut last week at the Byron. The bad news: he would have finished dead last by six shots.

The point of this silliness is to demonstrate exactly how superior Rory’s putting performance was, even at his level of the game, and to put in perspective “how good these guys really are.” Let’s analyze Rory’s performance vs. the average weekend golfer:

What do the Traditional Stats Tell Us?

Total Putts per Round: Rory averaged 25.8 - think about how good that is. Our Average golfer averages 33.7. That is a difference of 7.8 per round or 31.2 strokes over a four-day tournament.

Putts per Green Hit in Regulation: Rory was an incredible 1.53. You will not see that very often. Our Average golfer would be 2.2 - again about 32 strokes over four days.

# 3 Putts: Rory had none. This is not unusual for a winner on the PGA Tour. Mr. Average Golfer, however, would have had two per round.

# 1 Putts: Rory had 37 1-putt greens. Think about it, under the pressure of a 72 hole PGA Tour event that not only means mega dollars but exemptions and invites to the Masters, Rory chipped/sanded in on two holes and then 1-putted on 37 more. That is 54% of the holes played! Mr. Average Golferwould not have holed out any of those greenside shots and would only have 1-putted four times each round, or 16 1-putts vs. Rory's 37.

Rory had 27 greenside, short game opportunities. His average putting distance was a tidy 5.8 feet and he “saved” 66% (18 of 27). Here’s a niblick: even at this close range, our average golfer can only expect to save about 40%, as his 50% “make” distance is just outside 4 feet.

Finally, putting is a skill at which there is always room for improvement – no matter at what level we play golf. Further, it does not require size or strength, merely solid technique and practice. It is at least 40% of the game for everyone. Do you spend 40% of your golf instruction and practice time with your flat stick?

For an accurate evaluation of your putting performance, as well as effective practice drills, log on to http://www.shotbyshot.com/. If your basic putting technique needs work, see your local teaching pro.

Rory's Putter Roared the Loudest

Finally, an example of “Tour Stats” bearing a direct relationship to the outcome of a golf tournament! Rory Sabbatini won the HP Byron Nelson Championship last weekend, and his phenomenal putting was ranked #1 in both Putts per GIR and Putts per round. Readers of this blog know how strongly I disagree with these two traditional gems of “statistical golf analysis,” so why now are they correct? Have you heard the one about 10,000 monkeys banging on typewriters eventually producing something coherent? No, it’s not quite that extreme. (And no offense meant to the folks at the PGA Tour - I know many of them and they are highly competent but constrained by the Tour’s traditional stat viewpoint.) But let’s take a closer look at Rory’s putting performance.

The ShotByShot.com View
When I ran the distance of each first putting opportunity and the number of putts needed to hole out on each green through ShotByShot.com’s proprietary models, Rory’s overall performance ranked better than what I typically see from the winners on the Tour. Here's a niblick of truth: of Rory's record 19 strokes under par, over 50% - approximately 10 strokes - are attributable to his fabulous putting.

The Common Sense View
With no 3-putts for the week, Rory managed to 1-putt better than half of the 72 greens (37 to be exact). He also chipped in from off the green twice. His longest one-putt was from 41 feet in the 3rd round, a distance from which the average Tour player will average just over 2 putts. The average distance of Rory’s 37 one-putts was eight feet – coincidently the distance from which the average Tour player will only make 50% of his putts. Finally, it is ironic that over a four day golf tournament, Rory’s only missed putt from 5 feet or closer came on the final hole of the tournament. Fortunately, he only needed a 3-putt to secure his victory.


There's a lot that mere mortals can learn about their putting performance - and the other components of their golf game as well - from ShotByShot.com's analysis. Go to www.ShotByShot.com for more information.

Driving Accuracy Redux

Apologies for some of the handicap coordinates missing from the chart in my last post on Driving Accuracy. Apparently the chart was too wide for my template. I published a similar article in Golf Digest, which can be found at http://www.golfdigest.com/instruction/longgame/accuracy/sanders_gd0809. It contains a simplified chart that may be helpful. If your handicap is missing and you'd like to know the average strokes lost specifically for you, please make a comment below and I will respond.

A Quick Test of Golf Tee Shot Accuracy

As I have stated previously, ‘Fairways Hit’ is one of my least favorite of the traditional golf statistics. This is because it oversimplifies the issue by asking for a true or false answer to what should be a multiple choice question. This stat would be meaningful if it were always true that hitting the fairway was better than not – but it isn’t! And the real problem is that much more information is needed about a tee shot that misses the fairway before it can be determined a mistake. Think about it: this stat does not differentiate between a tee shot that ends up 250 yards out in the first cut of rough and a drive that goes OB. Is that a valid measurement of golf performance?

A better way
The data that we have gathered over 18 years of analyzing the golf game at ShotByShot gives us a better way to look at this issue. A study of our extensive database, where golfers have always recorded the position of every shot along with a rating of its relative difficulty, revealed five basic types of results that follow a missed fairway from the tee:

LIGHT ROUGH
HEAVY ROUGH
NO SHOT
PENALTY (1 Stroke: hazard or unplayable)
XX PENALTY (Stroke + Distance – OB or Lost)

We applied the TEST described below to each of the handicap levels in our database to determine the approximate cost, in stokes, of the missed fairways. You can use this test to see the approximate strokes that you are losing per round. You can also compare your results to your handicap group to determine whether this is a strength or weakness of your golf game.

Try this test

Step #1
In your next few rounds, track your missed fairways. On a typical golf course you will have 14 driving opportunities on the par 4 and par 5 holes. On a blank line on your scorecard, rate each missed fairway on the scale of 0 – 4: LIGHT ROUGH = 0; HEAVY ROUGH = 1; NO SHOT = 2; PENALTY = 3; XX PENALTY = 4.

Step #2
At the end of each round, add up the points and divide the total by 2. This number will approximate the number of strokes that your missed fairways cost you in that round. Average a few rounds see how your average strokes lost per round relates to your handicap group.

For more specifics on the strengths and weaknesses of your golf game relative to yor handicap, go to www.ShotByShot.com

An 'Approach' to Practice

Here are a few 'niblicks' on Approach Shots:

• An Approach Shot = an attempt to hit a green from 51 yards or more.
• Our statistical database tells us that the average golfer has 20 approach shot opportunities per round. But wait – how can this be right? Wouldn’t there have to be more than 18 holes of golf to make this true? Sadly, NO! The average golfer experiences the frustration at least twice a round of a first approach attempt that leaves them with yet another attempt, still not within 50 yards of the hole.
• The average golfer’s (first) approach distance is about 140 yards from the flag.
• The average golfer's approach shot success rate – the percent of greens they hit – is just 33%.

Better approach shot performance is clearly a great improvement opportunity for the average golfer. Pushing the average number of approach shots per round below 20 into the teens is not a lofty goal – but any progress in this area will translate into lower scores and an improved handicap.

What should you work on?
Spend your time on shorter approach shots. 60% of your total approach opportunities will fall in the 91 – 180 yard range. But our analysis tells us that your approach success rate – shots that hit the green – will fall off markedly outside 150 yards. I recommend spending your limited practice time (and/or lesson time if you are working with a pro) gaining confidence in controlling your distance and accuracy in relatively close range – 91 to 130 yards. As your confidence and success grows, you can expand your distances.

What about longer approach shots? As you work toward shorter approach shot mastery, I have two recommendations for longer approach shots:

1. Adjust your expectations

a. Visualize a large target. This will reduce the pressure you feel and reduce tension.
b. Aim away from trouble. Years ago a top touring professional confessed to me that his “…only goal when faced with a long-iron approach shot was not to make a mistake.”

2. Go hybrid! If you've not already replaced your long irons with hybrids, do it now. These newer generation weapons are designed to make the longer, more difficult approach and advancement shots much easier.

For more specific information about the strengths and weaknesses of your golf game, go to www.ShotByShot.com.

Good Luck, Max!

My friend, Max Adler, Associate Editor at Golf Digest, is contending today in the U.S. Open Local Qualifier at Misquamicut Golf Club in Rhode Island. Max selected Misquamicut as his venue because he fired a 67 there last summer. We had a fun session recently in which we worked on a hole-by-hole course strategy for today's round. Hopefully it will help him score at least as well as he did last time. I wish him all the best today.

Max has co-written my last three Golf Digest articles (heavy emphasis on the "written,") and is a user of the ShotByShot.com golf game analysis system. Max is writing an online diary of his quest for the "Black Ring" at Bethpage. He was kind enough to give ShotByShot a plug in a recent journal entry:

http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/usopencontest/2009/04/2009usopen_adler6

What really won the Texas Valero Open for Zach Johnson?

Here are Zach Johnson's “key statistics” according to the PGA Golf Tour:

Driving Accuracy: 66.1% = T 29th
Driving Distance: 295.8 = 47th
(It could not have been his driving?!)

Greens in Regulation: 76.4% = T 10th
(So much for his Long Game?)

(Maybe it was putting?)
Putts per GIR: 1.764 = 37th
Putts per round: 28.3 = T 27th
(Not if one believes these numbers!)

With these mediocre performance statistics, how on earth did Zach win this golf tournament?

A different perspective of the four rounds as seen through SHOT BY SHOT patented golf game analysis reveals this niblick of truth: the consistency and efficiency of Zach’s Long Game clearly won the day.

Driving
While Zach missed an average of 4.6 fairways each round, his misses were in fairly good spots from which he still had reasonable, if not good, opportunities to accomplish his next goal. Zach made only one true “mistake” – on the 10th hole in the final round he drove the ball into a place from which he could only advance the ball back into play.

Greens in Regulation
Zach averaged 13.75 GIR’s per round which is very good and slightly above our profile of other Winners on the PGA Tour.

Long Game Efficiency Index (LGEI, patent pending)
When we add up Zach’s long strokes (50 yards and out) and divide them by his GIR’s, we get an LGEI of 2.38. This is better than our “Winners” profile and equal to Tiger’s numbers recorded during his impressive 2006-07 win streak – to date the best I have seen.

But wait, there is more:
The greens were firm and fast and they were playing in the Texas wind – it was difficult to keep the ball on the putting surfaces. Zach had nine instances where his golf ball finished just off the green and almost all were putt-able, and he holed two of these. In six out of nine cases Zach’s ball, while off the green, was within 30 feet of the cup and definitely inside 2-putt range. If we count these six as GIR’s for the purposes of our LGEI, his index drops to 2.14. This is by far the best that I have seen and very close to the perfect “score” of 2.00.

Bottom line, Zach won the Valero Open because he managed his long game strokes nearly perfectly. He made only one error and consistently hit the greens or very near the hole.

Trouble Shots in Golf: Take your Medicine!

OK, so we all understand the importance of avoiding mistakes on the golf course. We also understand that, as Dr. Bob Rotella says, "golf is not a game of perfect," and mistakes do and will occur. The SHOTBYSHOT.com statistics tell us that the "Average" golfer (15 to 19 handicap) will have four trouble shots per round. If they were all played conservatively - in other words, getting the ball safely back in play - think of the strokes that could be saved. When a golf mistake happens in such a way that you have an opportunity to recover - in other words, manufacture a shot that might save the hole - here are some niblicks of advice...

Manufactured shots involve the use of a golf club in a way that is extraordinary, or outside its conventional purpose. An example would be a punch out from under a tree, or a high intentional slice to get around and over an obstacle. Since you have already made one mistake to get there, your key objective should be to avoid compounding your error. Job #1 is to get the golf ball safely back in play, so do what you can to accomplish that goal.

This may sound silly, but assessing your options from a golf ball's eye view is always a good idea. When practical, seeing the proposed flight of the ball from as close as possible to ground level will give you a different and better perspective on the opening you think you see from a standing position. Here's the chance you've been looking for to impress your friends with your Camillo move. But if you emerge from the round with dirt on your knees and branches in your hair, take this as a clue to where your golf game needs improvement.

If you are "lucky" enough to be considering an array of trouble shot options, a good rule of thumb is to pick the one that involves a close to a normal golf swing as possible. Many of the more creative shots involve something other than a conventional address position and/or a natural swing path. Only attempt such a manufactured swing when there are no reasonable options. If logistics or ego make it impossible to swing normally, try to build a positive image and feel for the shot by taking at least two realistic rehearsal swings. Then use this image as your swing thought during the execution of your trouble shot. Good luck!