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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

The Long Game in Golf: How Good is Good Enough?

OK, enough about Henrik Stenson’s long game. Let’s talk about Average Joe’s (or Josephine’s) long game. They stand up on every tee with a (wo)manly driver in hand, heads filled with thoughts of hitting the golf ball farther and straighter than ever before. This can make the tee shot much more difficult and stressful than it needs to be. Think about it – the tee shot in golf should be the easiest shot on the course. First, the lie is always perfect. And second, the target (fairway) is very unspecific and much less tied to distance and direction than any other shot.

How many times per round do you hit your driver? Or more to the point, how many times do you choose something other than a driver off the tee on a par 4 or 5 hole? Here’s a niblick of truth: Did you know that less than 10% of golfers consistently hit their driver farther in the fairway than their 3-wood? (And trust me, there is an inverse correlation between driver success % and handicap.)

If you really want to improve your golf score, perhaps it is time to re-think your driving club selection. If tee shots are a problem for you then your card is probably showing more than its share of double and triple bogeys. (DUH?) Here are a few statistical niblicks about the game played by the single-digit handicappers that Mr. or Ms. Average Golfer should be emulating:

• They record double bogey or worse in 1 out of 10 holes
• Over 70% of their double bogeys or worse start with a problem tee shot
• Their odds of recording a double bogey or worse plummet to 1 out of 35 holes when the tee shot is successful!

The point is that simply getting a tee shot in play not only creates the opportunity for good things to happen, it dramatically reduces the likelihood of disaster. The bottom line is that if you are setting realistic goals, the golf tee shot should not need to be great in order to be "good enough" to achieve your goal.

A Better Way to Track Long Game Improvement

How Good Was Henrik Stenson’s Long Game Last Weekend?

He may have won the recent TPC golf tournament, a “mini-major.” But according to the PGA Tour’s stats, Henrick's long game did not rank in the top 10 in the field. I strongly disagree! Here are his long game statistics as displayed on PGA Tour.com:
Driving Accuracy – T11 (73.2%, or 10.24 of 14 fairways hit)
Greens in Regulation – T12 (68.1%, or 12.25 of 18 GIR's)

What’s wrong with these stats?

As I've commented previously, the Fairways Hit stat is by far the weakest performance barometer of all traditional golf statistics for two reasons. First, it ignores driving distance. But most importantly, it ignores the differences between the relative severity of the fairways missed. By this measure, a drive hit OB counts the same as a "miss" sitting up nicely in the first cut. That is so wrong!

Greens in Regulation (GIR’s) is the best of the “old school” golf stats because it means two positive things. First, the long game was efficient enough to achieve the green in regulation. Second, it identifies that there was a birdie opportunity. Its shortcoming is that it does not measure or describe what happened on the holes where the golfer did not hit the green in reg. On the PGA Tour, this conservatively leaves out 33% of the holes and, by the way, the holes where not-so-good things happened. For most amateurs, this golf stat is really a waste of time for tracking improvement because the average 15 to 19 handicap golfer hits only 4 greens a round.

A much better Long Game barometer

I put Henrik Stenson’s long game to a better test – his Long Game Efficiency Index (LGEI - patent pending). This simple test adds up his total Long Game strokes (all strokes from outside 50 yards), divides that number by his GIR’s to arrive at his Efficiency Index.
What makes this statistic better? Because it combines the best of what GIR’s tell us with everything that happened in the long game on all 18 holes. As such, penalties, flubs and miss-hits on the non-GIR holes are all counted.

Henrik’s LGEI in the 2009 TPC:
Total Long Game Strokes per round: 33.7 / 12.25 GIR’s = 2.75 LGEI

Now, to put this into perspective, the hypothetical “perfect” long game round would be:
Long Game strokes 36 / 18 GIR’s = 2.00 LGEI

Winners on the PGA Tour:
Long Game strokes 33.5 / 13 GIR’s = 2.58 LGEI

The BEST I have seen – Tiger Woods in his 2006-07 streak of Seven Consecutive Wins:
Long Game strokes 32.75 / 13.75 GIR’s = 2.38 LGEI

Bottom line, I’d bet that if we calculated a LGEI for every player in last weekend’s TPC event, we would see Henrik’s Long Game ranking jump to #1 or very close to it. His performance was remarkably efficient. Think about it – on a tight Pete Dye golf course full of hazards, he had a total of two Long Game mistakes in 72 holes. One drive resulted in such a poor position that he was forced to simply advance the ball, and one approach shot found a water hazard.

I agree that it can be painful to re-live penalties, flubs and mishits, but here's a niblick of truth: owning up to them and committing to reducing them is critical to improving your golf game. For the most complete picture of the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of your golf game, log on to www.shotbyshot.com.

Here's What's Wrong with Golf Stats

Is it fair to say that something is wrong with traditional golf statistics when Henrik Stensen, the guy who blew away the field to win last weekend's TPC tournament, had lukewarm rankings in the major performance areas tracked by the Tour? Here's how he did:

• T 11th - Fairways Hit
• 18th - Driving Distance
• T 14th - Putts per Round
• 32nd - GIR's
• T 12th - Putts per GIR
• T37th - Sand Saves

Stensen's "best" performance came in Fairways Hit, also known as Driving Accuracy, and arguably the least credible of the traditional stats. Think about it - as long as they both end up in the fairway, this stat gives equal credit to a 150 yard blooper and a 295 yard rocket. Or it would have you thinking that blooper in the fairway is preferable to a rocket that ends up off the fairway in the first cut of rough. Or even more distorting, this stat rates a tee shot that lands in the water or out of bounds as no worse than the 275 rocket that is just in the first cut. Neither one is in the fairway, but which one would you rather play???

Stensen's 2nd "best" performance came in Greens in Regulation, which I believe is by far the most useful of the old-world stats. A YES tells us something decisively positive about that hole, and as we all know, we tend not to achieve a "personal best" GIR's/round on a day that we're playing bad golf.

Bottom line, as flawed as they are, I wonder why the PGA Tour continues to compute, publish and rely upon these outdated "indicators" of performance.

For a complete analysis of your golf game calculated the RIGHT WAY, go to www.ShotByShot.com

Putting for Dough- Part III

As we move away from the cup, distance control becomes more and more important to putting improvement for golfers of all levels. This is because the odds of a 1-Putt drop outside 10 feet, even for Tour players. At the same time the dreaded 3-Putt looms larger and larger.

Let’s focus on the value of distance control outside 10 feet. The range from 11 – 50 foot is where 95% of lag opportunities occur (only 5% occur outside 50 feet). We all face at least 10 first putt opportunities in this range every round. Since your likelihood of 1-putting is low, your goal should be to make sure to leave yourself in a position to 2-Putt.

The 10% rule
A reasonable goal on every distance control or “lag” opportunity should be to leave the ball within 10% of the starting distance. For example: From 30 feet, envision a 3 foot circle around the hole and try to leave the ball within the circle. As you develop better feel, aim for a spot below the hole. A study of players on the PGA Tour revealed that they consistently lag the ball to within 7% of their starting distance. I recommend the 10% rule because most of us are not Touring caliber and the math is much easier.

How often should you 3-Putt?

Handicap Ranges:
PGA Tour .6 x per round
0-5 .8 x
6-10 1.1 x
11-15 1.4 x
16-25 2.1 x
26-35 3.4 x

Practice a 30 foot stroke
I recommend pacing off 30 feet on your practice green and practicing lagging a few balls back and forth between tees placed at this distance. This 30 foot distance is smack in the middle of the 11 to 50 foot range. Once on the course, you can measure and weigh all lag opportunities as a percentage of your 30 foot stroke.

For a Complete Analysis of Your Game, log on to: http://www.shotbyshot.com/

More on Putting for Dough

For most golfers, putting represents 40% of their strokes per round. Putting offers a premium improvement opportunity for all golfers because of the relatively low correlation between proficiency and physical strength/flexibility/coordination. With regular and focused work on the practice green, players at almost any level can shave 3-5 strokes off of their average golf score.

Something that I struggle with is how to simulate the pressure of that "must make" 3-footer on the practice green. Try placing five golf balls in a circle around a hole - preferably one with some slope. Don't letting 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. A key component of this drill is to build confidence, not frustration. Remember this niblick of truth: the pros make just 50% of their 8 foot putts, and only 30% of their 12 foot putts, so make your improvement targets achievable!

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

Pre-Shot Routine

There is a lot to be learned by observing great golfers. Who better to watch and emulate than the World’s Most Recognized Athlete? I have been studying Tiger Woods since he reached the top shelf of golf in 2000. A statistical “stalker” of sorts, I recorded every televised event and then used the replay to record Tiger’s SHOT BY SHOT data. I’ve moved beyond the VCR, but I still record every event, and learn something new at every viewing.

Call me a stat-obsessed geek, but during the final round of the 2007 PGA Championship I decided to put a stop watch to Tiger’s pre-shot routine. I had done this with Phil Mickelson during his march to victory in the final round of the 2004 Masters. I found the results and comparisons interesting.

What do I mean by Pre-Shot Routine?
There are two important processes we should go through before we hit the ball. First, we plan the shot. This involves visualizing the shot and selecting the right club to make it happen. It can involve discussion with a caddie and/or a playing partner. As much of this part of the process as possible should take place before it is officially your turn.
Then once the shot decision has been made, we step forward, move into address position, and execute the shot. At this point the cameras are rolling. I think of that step forward into the address position as moving into an Isolation Bubble. Once in the bubble, no second thoughts or doubts should be allowed to permeate.
The part of the Pre-Shot Routine that I timed for Tiger and Phil was this “bubble” segment – the time from the moment each player stepped forward from behind the ball until contact with the ball was made.

What did I learn?
I timed a representative sample of tee shots, approach shots, short game shots and putts for both players. Tiger and Phil have decidedly different routines for different types of shots. Their full swing routines are quicker than their routines for putting and the short game.
Full Swing
Tiger’s full swing routine is between 9 and 11 seconds every time. Step forward, setup, two short waggles and WOOSH! For the same full shots, Phil’s routine is slightly longer - between 14 and 17 seconds.
Putting & Short Game
Interestingly, both champions had slightly longer pre-shot routines on and around the greens, but both averaged 20 seconds. Tiger’s longest putting routine – 24 seconds – came on a breaking 12 foot putt for birdie. (And 24 seconds is still quite quick in comparison to how long Jack Nicklaus would loom over a must-make putt.) My guess is that the slightly longer routines here are dictated by the addition of the distance or “touch” variable to the process.

How can you use this?

• Develop your own pre-shot routine and divide it into the two segments discussed: Planning & Execution.
• Have a friend time you in the “bubble” – from the moment you step forward and begin to address the ball until your club makes contact with the ball. If you're in it longer than 20 seconds you are not only wasting time, you are leaving too much of an opening for doubt and confusion to seep into your bubble.
• Practice your pre-shot routine whenever you practice. Make it an automatic part of each shot and the same every time, whether you are on the course or in the practice area. Relying on a solid routine is the best defense against the pressure of competition.
  

For a Complete Analysis of Your Game, log on to: www.ShotByShot.com

Make the Sand Your Friend!

The Sand Shot requires more confidence that any other shot in golf, and can be the most intimidating. You must use a reasonably full swing to propel your golf ball a relatively short distance – all the while making sure to MISS the ball. Is it any wonder that the tendency to decelerate on impact is only rivaled by the desperate urge to help the golf ball up and out of the sand with the club and/or your entire body?

Before you can get creative about shot making and target visualization, you must develop confidence in your basic sand technique. If either your technique or your self-esteem needs help, consult with your local teaching pro to develop a simple “confidence shot.” This should be a shot that you can trust to get out of any sand trap and onto the green - from any reasonable lie – every time.

A good practice drill to develop this confidence is to set a goal of executing a consecutive number of acceptable sand shots from different distance and lies before quitting. When you reach your goal, stop for the day, or move on to another facet of your golf game.

How do you set a realistic goal? Here are some statistics: In a recent study of US Open qualifiers facing sand shots 50 feet from the cup, the best 50% of these shots ended up 7½ feet from the hole, or within 15% of the original distance. The average 10 handicap golfer should certainly be satisfied with getting the ball on the green within 30% of the original distance. This creates a very large and forgiving bull’s eye.

Strive to get the ball up and down, but keep in mind that PGA Tour leaders in this category get up and down only 60% of the time. So what you really want to focus on is avoiding the “up, up and down, down” or the up, down, down and down.” By visualizing the target as the middle of a very large circle, you will minimize self-imposed pressure, make fewer mistakes, and see measurable improvement in your golf scoring.

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

Putt for Dough

We have been discussing the positive impact that getting up & down can have on your golf scores. To get the ball up & down, you generally need to do two things pretty well: 1) select and execute the short shot that gets you on the green; and 2) make that putt!

Sounds easy, but is it? In a recent study of US Open qualifiers, how close do you think they had to be to make 100% of their putts? Can you relate to 1 ½ feet? These top performers make just 50% of their 8 foot putts, and only 30% of their 12 foot putts! Hopefully this makes you feel better.

One of the many things that the pros do that is worth imitating is to divide putting into two separate categories: lag putts, and short strokes. A different mindset applies to each.

Lag Putts
A good rule of thumb is to think of any putt outside 6 feet as a lag. From 6 to 12 feet you want your putts to reach the hole and have a good chance to go in, but you will only frustrate yourself if you expect to make them all. Direction and distance are both important, but in general, the farther away you are from the hole, the more priority you should place on distance.

The mind-set should be much the same as with a chip shot – if you miss, you want to leave yourself in a great position to make the next putt. Feel is key. Concentrate on the line first, visualize the putt, and focus on getting a feel for the distance and weight of the stroke. Then set up on the line and make this feel your swing key through impact.

Short Strokes
The short stroke is any putt where you are 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. Visualize a stroke that will put the ball through the wicket.

If you practice nothing else, you should be working to build skill in your short stroke. Confidence in this area will take pressure off of the rest of your game, and consistent success will drive your opponents crazy!

For more personalized analysis of your putting performance and improvement progress, go to www.ShotByShot.com

Short Game: How Close is Close?

My last article highlighted the importance of eliminating short game errors from our golf rounds. Building on that, here’s more diagnostics on short game performance. Traditional golf stat programs have you evaluate your short game by counting “Saves,” or the percentage of opportunities that you get up and down. Certainly getting up and down is always the goal, but as a statistic it can be misleading. This is because it mixes two important parts of the golf game – short game shots and putting. If you are just tracking Saves, you could be masking issues (or excellence!) in either your chip/pitch or putting skill.

At ShotByShot, we believe the proper way to evaluate short game ability is to measure the average putting distance after the short game shot, and calculate the % of opportunities that are successfully hit to within 5 feet.

Chip/Pitch Shots - How Important?
The answer for any golfer depends on the number of opportunities faced in each round. Long game performance directly affects the number of chip/pitch opportunities because more greens-hit-in-regulation means fewer short game shots – but that’s a topic for another day.

Here are some basic statistics from the ShotByShot database to help put your short game skill in perspective:


These stats will tell you whether or not your Short Game represents an improvement opportunity, or if your precious practice and lesson time (and $$$) should be spent elsewhere.


For a Complete Analysis of Your Game, go to: http://www.shotbyshot.com/

Don't Forget the Short Game

I have commented previously about how frequency and severity of errors separates golfers at every level. Everyone hits good shots, but it is the bad shots that tend to be the player's signature and the determining factor in scoring. Mistakes are particularly problematic in the short game because they tend to leave an impression that carries over to the next tee.

How can you determine whether your own Short Game error performance is in or out of line with your handicap? Take a look at where you fall on the chart below by keeping track of your Chip/Pitch and Sand opportunities for the next 3 to 5 rounds. On your scorecard make a note of the total number of opportunities, and the number of those opportunites that result in an error. (Any shot that does not finish on the putting surface is considered an error.) Divide the # of errors by the total of attempts to calculate your % of Errors, and see how your stats stack up:

OK, so now what do you do if your short game error ratio is out of whack? Shot selection is one of the most common judgment errors made by amateurs. Discipline yourself to evaluate the position of your ball, the lie, its relation to the hole and the amount of green with which you have to work. Try to categorize each opportunity as a Green, Yellow or Red light.

Green = A good lie and position; one you should try to get close, if not hole out.
Yellow = Not a great lie but one that you can get to within 10 to 12 feet or closer with an average, low risk shot.
Red = A difficult lie and position. Choose a shot that will get you safely on the green in a position where you can expect to 2-putt.

Work at this when you practice and play and you will dramatically reduce your short game errors and improve your score.

(For more detailed comparative analysis on how the pieces of your game compare to your target handicap, go to http://www.shotbyshot.com/)

Fairways Hit? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Ability to hit fairways has long been the traditional measure of golf driving accuracy. It is, after all, our goal when we stand on the tee of a par 4 or par 5 hole. But, like most traditional golf statistics, it is one-dimensional. That’s because 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’ is the most positive outcome. But think about it – is that really the case?

Over the past 18 years we have analyzed golf performance at every level – including PGA Tour players – and have 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. (ERROR = a result that was a penalty, or in a position from which he did not have a normal advancement opportunity for his next shot.)

At the amateur level, the frequency and severity of errors tends to be directly correlated to the handicap. In a study of single-digit handicap golfers that I conducted several years ago, I determined that over 80% of double bogeys began with an error from the tee. A double bogey is the dreaded, scoring anathema for this low handicap group. I have found that these errors have much more to do with long game effectiveness. And developing a strategy to avoid errors is much more important to the improvement process than focusing on the number of fairways hit.

Test your game:
•Step #1: Play your normal game and track your tee shot errors (Remember, ERROR = a penalty, or in a position from which there is not a normal advancement opportunity for your next shot) in your next few rounds to see where you stack up on the chart below. In a typical round, you will have 14 driving opportunities. One error would be 7% (1/14).

PGA Tour 5% errors
0-5 hcp 10%
6-10 hcp 19%
11-15 hcp 30%
16-25 hcp 42%
26-35 hcp 57%

Step #2: Next, play a few rounds where you make conscious choices to avoid these errors and see what effect it has on your score. This means selecting both the club and target that provides the greatest guarantee of success. It might mean using 3-wood or even 5-iron off the tee and playing away from potential trouble. It will take discipline. But if mistakes off the tee are a problem, you will be surprised at the improvements you will see.

(For more detailed information on your own personal Driving Performance, check out the game analysis options available at http://www.shotbyshot.com/.)

Avoid mistakes and improve your golf game - DUH!

Avoid mistakes? No S _ _ T, Sherlock!

Go ahead and say it. But before you click away, let’s take a look at the profile of “Average Joe” golfer, his scoring tendencies, and see how mistakes impact his scores.

Joe is a 15-19 handicap whose average score is 90. On the plus side of Joe's performance, he makes five pars a round and throws in an occasional birdie every 2.5 rounds. These good holes obviously indicate some talent, and enough good shots to keep him coming back. He has a solid game, often refered to as “Bogey Golf.”

This label is only accurate as it refers to Joe's total score. If he could limit his bad holes to no worse than bogey, he'd actually be a significantly better player – six shots better, to be exact. These six shots come in the form of four double-bogeys and one triple bogey per round. “Improve” these five bad holes to bogeys – and presto! – Joe is improves to the 10-14 handicap range.

What mistakes should be avoided?

That’s simple, avoid them all. But that’s just not realistic. I have found that every golfer is unique in how they find their way to the end score. But if you fall into Joe’s handicap range and/or routinely spoil your card with the big numbers mentioned above, I suggest you start analyzing your bad holes to identify your mistakes. Over a series of rounds, I promise you will see a pattern emerge. Once you do, discuss it with your pro and develop a strategy, practice regimen and mental approach to avoid them.

Try this:

Whenever you record a double-bogey or worse, indicate the type of shot or major facet that was the main cause or that led to the score. I recommend you use the following notation system. You can record these statistics on a blank line of your scorecard or in the margin under the appropriate hole(s).

• T = a drive or tee shot on a par 4 or 5
• A = approach shot; any attempt to hit a green from 50+ yards
• C = chip of pitch shots
• S = shots out of the sand within 50 yards of the green
• P = a 3-putt or worse from inside 25 feet

Do you find that you make a similar mistake each time you play a certain hole on your home course? Perhaps you can’t seem to miss a prominent water hazard or are drawn to the same OB stakes. Whether it is a given type of shot, a demanding hole or a combination thereof, once isolated, you and your pro will be able to address the problem. If you are good enough to make five pars a round, you are good enough to shape your game or your strategy around your most common mistakes and improve to the next level.

(If you find that Tee Shots are an issue for you, I have built a new feature called Driving Miss Diagnosis into the game analysis provided at www.ShotByShot.com. I recommend that you give it a try.)

What's wrong with Golf Stats?

When I took up golf seriously, I started keeping track of the “stats” that I read about in Golf Digest: Fairways Hit, Greens-in-Regulation, Sand Saves and Total Putts. I saved each round, created a simple spreadsheet and set about to learn exactly where I needed to improve. I became frustrated quickly as I encountered two major problems. First, the only stats that I had for comparison were those published on the PGA Tour. As a 14 handicap, the pros were obviously playing a dramatically different game. Worse than that, I could not draw any definitive correlation between my best and worst rounds using these traditional performance barometers. The good news: this experience motivated me to scrap these statistics and start over with data that would provide real insight.

In my view traditional statistics don’t work because golf is a multifaceted game, played in 3-dimensions – up, down, right, left, long and short. It cannot be properly represented by flat, YES or NO answers to 1-dimensional questions. What follows are the problems as well as the solutions that SHOT BY SHOT offers.

Fairways Hit:

Problem: The best example of the problem with traditional stats is the question of whether a player hit a 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? This stat treats the two misses equally.

Solution: To address this obvious flaw, SHOT BY SHOT.com will soon release a new feature: Driving “Miss Diagnosis.” Our users will categorize each of their missed fairways as one of five degrees of severity ranging from Best (a good lie/opportunity) to Worst (OB or Lost ball). We believe the insight presented will set a new standard in golf statistics and analysis.

Greens-in-regulation (GIR’s):

Problem: This is by far the most useful of the old-world stats because a YES tells us something definite and positive about that hole. There are two problems: First, most amateurs do not hit very many. 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 it was, on all those other holes.

Solution: To address this flaw, SHOT BY SHOT created our patented, Long Game Efficiency Index. We evaluate the ratio of total long game strokes to GIR’s that results in a complete overview of a player’s long game. An article was published on this innovation in the May 2006 Golf Digest.

Sand Saves:

Problem: Also known as a 1-putt following a greenside sand shot, this one stat actually encompasses two facets of the game – sand play and putting. Unfortunately traditional stats ignore the rest of the short game, which usually comprises a far greater number of shots per round but it also ignores Errors (shots that miss the green).

Solution: SHOT BY SHOT evaluates both Chip/Pitch and Sand facets by a combination of how close shots are hit to the hole and errors. We were the first to recognize the impact that errors had on the game and to build it into our analysis.

# Putts per round:

Problem: 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!

Solution: SHOT BY SHOT was the first to include the distance of the first putting opportunity on each green, over 18 years ago. We have developed proprietary models for the accurate analysis of every putting opportunity. We can compare each player’s putting performance by distance range to that of their peer/target group and point out exactly where they need to practice.

For a Complete Analysis of Your Game, click on the logo above.