Scholarship recipient makes good!

Meet Turner Southey-Gordon - A 17 year old, accomplished golfer from Ontario, Canada.

When the RCGA asked me to provide the tournament statistics for the Canadian Future Links, 17 and under Junior Championship this May, I jumped at the chance.  I knew it would be an ambitious, but worthwhile undertaking to capture the data, post-round for 99 top juniors.  After all, many of them would be playing in their most important event of their young lives.  I wrote about this in my June 2nd entry:  "Jr. Golf is Alive and Well in Canada." 

In order to help the participants become familiar with the program, we created an account for each player and gave them access a full month prior to the event.  Further, we encouraged them to use it as much as they wanted.  While I did not publish it, I decided to award the player that took the best advantage of the offer (entered the most rounds) with a lifetime scholarship to the program.

On site, and the day of the practice round, I made a brief presentation to the golfers and their parents on ShotByShot.com and what we expected them to record during their rounds or at least be thinking about in preparation for their post-round data entry.  At the end of my presentation, I asked if Mr. Southey-Gordon would please stop by to see me.  Up walked a shy young man obviously nervous as to why he had been singled out.  I informed Turner that the seven rounds that he had entered had won him the "scholarship" and he beamed with pride.  It proved particularly appropriate because Turner was not one of the 30+ players that were being provided the program through the RCGA or their local coach, at no cost.  For the next three days whenever I saw Turner I gave him a hearty greeting as "My Scholarship Player!" and he would give me a giant smile and blush.  Turner finished 18th out of the 72 boys in the event - not bad.

Fast forward to the recent Ontario Summer Games - Ontario's version of the Junior Championships - where I was fortunate to provide the tournament stats again.  Who should be in the field and greet me with his giant smile but my "Scholarship Player," Turner Southey-Gordon.  It was like seeing an old friend.

To make matters even better, Turner shot a terrific 68 in the first round and had a 4 shot lead.  I could not show my enthusiasm, nor could I go out on the course and watch the 2nd round - I had more than enough to keep me busy.  However, the OGA has set up a live leader board on a big screen TV not far from where we were set up for data entry.  It enabled me to keep an eye on his progress and pull for him in silence.

Not only did Turner record another 68 to win the event by seven shots, in his brief acceptance speech he thanked me and ShotByShot.com.  Congratulations Turner!  You are a very good player and a delightful young man.  I will be watching your progress both in the headlines and through ShotByShot.com.           

Perspective on Appleby's 59 and Overton's 4-foot Miss

I was able to watch last weekend's PGA Tour event as it happened and was glued to Stuart Appleby's every move.  I have long found him to be a compelling, classy player and was rooting hard for both the 59 and the win.  Jeff Overton made it interesting but I felt showed his immaturity (and not-yet-ready-to-win attitude) with his mini-tantrum after missing the 4-foot birdie putt on the 17th hole.  Ian Baker-Finch was generous in agreeing that the ball hit something because I watched the replay a couple of times and saw no bump or change of direction.  It looked like a nervous "get this over with" pull.  We all know that stroke.  Jeff's "not my fault" reaction was way over the top and he clearly never recovered until his desperation putt on 18 - which was impressive.   More on the unfortunate 3-putt later.

The Old White Course
As I analyzed the performance data, I was reminded of a great friend's story:  While on a joint family vacation with another close friend, the two Dads snuck out for an early round while their families slept in.  They had a great match and both played exceptionally well, recording 68 and 69 respectively on a really tough golf course.  Back in the hotel, Dad #1 enthusiastically relayed the story of the two sub-par scores to his family.  His son, a young athlete and golfer, barely looked up from his TV show to say:  "It must be an easy course!"  

I do not want to detract from Appleby's great performance BUT the scoring and data could lead one to say: "It must be an easy course!"  Appleby blew away my 70% Rule with a combined average of 80%, but the field's 65% came closer than I have ever seen to the magic 70% Rule for Winners on the PGA Tour.  For more on this see my June 10th post - Last Time on 70% Rule.  The major difference was in the important GIR %.  Appleby hit 79% but the field was close behind at 77%.  This is considerably above the Tour Avg. of 65%.  The relative length of the golf course (only 7,020), and damp, windless conditions made the greens both accessible and receptive.  I hope that next year the weather and course conditions will better protect this great old design.

The 3-Putt    
Jeff Overton was on track to tie for the lead when he hit the par-5, 17th hole in two.  A 2-putt for 49' 4" was all he needed to go to the short par 3, 18th tied with Appleby.  His lag was appropriately described as "a difficult 2-putt" by David Feherty.  More than the length, it was down-hill, side-hill to the hole.  Jeff's lag was a good one to leave the ball 3' 8".  Why?  Because my study of Top-10 performers on the PGA Tour revealed that they tend to lag within 7%* of the original distance.  In this case anything inside 4 feet qualifies - well done on the first part Jeff.  Here's the problem, and why I don't accept that Jeff was blameless in the subsequent miss.  He had already missed a 3' 6" putt in the 3rd round.  Could that have been a nagging, negative memory as he stood over a putt that he needed to  have a chance for his first win on Tour?

Finally, the Tour average for holing 4 foot putts is 91%.  Jeff's YTD average is slightly better at 94% but, tragically for him, a dismal 60% for this event.  For perspective, the average 10 handicap makes 75% of their 4 footers.  

*On distance control expectations, I recommend that we amateurs think in terms of 10% lag distances for two reasons:  First, we are a long way from the Tour level and second, the math is considerably easier.

Why Golf is a SeeSaw

I was recently asked by my friend Tony Ruggiero, host of the Dewsweepers Golf Talk Radio show, "What is the most important stat that good players have and the average 15 handicap doesn't?"  In one form or another, I get this question a lot.  My quick and irritating answer is:  "There isn't ONE key stat because golfers are like snowflakes and each finds his or her unique way to reach their number."  That said, when I look into my database (now 111,000 rounds), and review hundreds of golfers combined, the averages do produce clear trends. 

The secret to scoring at every level is much more than the ability to hit good golf shots but  also the skill to manage one's game and limit the frequency and severity of bad shots - ERRORS.  I discovered this major deficiency in golf statistics over 20 years ago when I started ShotByShot.  In addition to recording the good results, I developed a way for players to rationally categorize and record their inevitable bad results.  Once brought to light, players can focus their improvement efforts to work to limit the specific errors that are the most frequent and costly in their game. 

I recently researched my database to confirm the relationship between Good Shots or Results and Errors.  It came as no surprise that up and down the handicap scale there is a direct and predictable relationship between the UP and DOWN sides of the game.  I call it Golf's SeeSaw Effect  - you can see from the graph above why.

Here's what makes up the two sides of the SeeSaw:

Good Shots/Results:

• Greens Hit in Regulation.
• Chip/Pitch shots to within 5 feet.
• Sand shots to within 8 feet.
• 1-Putts from 4 to 10 feet.

Errors:

• Tee shots hit out of play (requiring an advancement) or that result in a penalty.
• Chip/Pitch shots that miss the green.
• Sand shots that miss the green.
• 3-Putts from 30 feet and closer. 

This is what the SeeSaw graph above is telling you:  The 0 Handicap golfer will create 18 positive results and incur only 1 error in his average "scratch" round (0 differential from Slope Adjusted Course Rating).

Good Shots/Results = 18

• 12 GIR's
•  2.5 Chip/Pitch Shots to 5 feet.
•    .5 Sand Shots to 8 feet.
•  3 1-Putts from 4 to 10 feet.

Errors = 1

•  .4 Tee shots hit out of play
•  .2 Chip/Pitch Shots miss green*
•  .1 Sand Shots miss green
•  .3 3-Putts from 30 feet or closer

*How can a golfer miss the green with .2 Chip/Pitch shots?  Easy, the 0 handicap golfer averages 5 Chip/Pitch shots per round and will make an error (miss the green) once every 5 rounds.

Check your UP's and DOWN'S over the next few rounds to see where you are on the SeeSaw and WHY.

Canadian National Junior Championships - Analysis Results

In mid-June I was engaged by the RCGA to provide statistical analysis for their Future Links National Junior Championship.  The field was comprised of the best 99 players in Canada in the ages from 14 to 18 (66 boys and 33 girls).  I had the pleasure of working very closely with Doug Roxburgh, Director, High Performance for Golf Canada and Henry Brunton, RCGA Men's National Team Coach.

After the players signed their scorecards each day, Doug and I helped them with the entry of their ShotByShot.com data.  Meanwhile, Henry tested each player's vitals on Trackman.  These  efforts produced an unusual combination of technical and performance data.

After the event, I created a new, Player Ranking report that revealed in ShotByShot.com proprietary terms where players in the field ranked in each important skill, and why.  Finally, with some collaboration from Doug Roxburgh and me, Henry compiled an excellent Summary of our findings and included the ShotByShot.com Top-20 ranked players in each facet.  For a copy of this complete report, please contact me directly (psanders@shotbyshot.com).

Conclusion

From my point of view, it was very gratifying to see that in every part of the game the levels of play were clearly delineated by the important balance of good shots/results and ERRORS.  I realize that I harp on this point, and how "traditional" stats ignore errors, but our analysis of this event dramatically demonstrated my point.  As we progressed up the scoring ranks, invariably the see-saw effect revealed fewer good results and a greater number of errors.  These results were clear in every facet and vividly illustrated in the Short Game results displayed below.  Bear in mind that this is an elite field of the best 66 boys in Canada.  Finally, we determined that the short game played a relatively greater role in the scoring differences than any other facet.

The six points on the graphs represent:

1.  Winner - Richard Jung

2.  Nat. Team - The 7 National Team members

3. - 6.  The 4 scoring quartiles - 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Q

 

Last time with the 70% Rule - Promise!

At the risk of beating this to death, allow me to crow momentarily over the success of my 70% Rule - a simple formula for what it takes to win on the PGA Tour (originally explained here). Since the beginning of tournament golf and "stats" the experts have been searching for basic summary answers for how to describe performance that matters the most - that which wins tournaments. The old standards have been displayed and discussed FOREVER:  Fairways Hit, GIR's and Putts/GIR.  While their shortcomings are many, GIR's totally trumps Fairways Hit, and Putts/GIR leaves out all the holes where there was no GIR - consider only the Winners and this ignores a third of the holes played.  No wonder they did not work.

Over the past two months I have demonstrated that my 70% Rule, when applied to the three summary stats above, clearly works.  It is not perfect because nothing simple, or summary in nature,  could ever accurately describe the complex, multi-dimensional game of golf.  That said, it is the best I have seen.  For the last time, here it is:

The 70% Rule

The overall average of the stats listed in the graphic above should be 70%.  I give each of the three equal weight despite the fact that they do not represent equally weighted parts of the game.  To the extent that one falls below the 70% mark, the other two need to exceed the 70% mark by enough to offset the deficit.

At the same time, ERRORS must be kept to three or less in a four round event.  The Errors tend to be mistakes that result in a stroke lost:

Long Game Errors:  Balls hit out of play (requiring unusual advancements to return to play), or  any penalty situation.

Short Game Errors:  Shots that miss the green AND where the total strokes needed to hole out from the original short game shot exceed three.  The "exceed 3" is a slight modification from my earlier definition.  Why? Because further study revealed that to penalize a player for simply missing the green, if they ultimately get down in three strokes is double jeopardy - the Scrambling stat already covers it by capturing it as a failed save.  An error needs to be a shot that results in a stroke lost NOT the failure to save.

Putting Errors

3 Putts or worse from 40 feet and closer. 

Unfortunately, the PGA Tour does not provide us with the ability to gauge the errors mentioned - or any errors, for that matter.  I believe that at some point they will recognize the importance of the downside of the game as every other sport has.  Imagine the analysis of baseball without  Fielding Errors and Strike Outs or football without Fumbles and Interceptions.  Mistakes have long been recognized as the difference in the outcome of the game as are the errors in golf.  For more on the importance of avoiding Errors in your game, see my article in the July 2010 issue of Golf Digest (p. 101) REDUCE ERRORS.  The article allows readers to measure the impact of their mistakes on their handicaps.

On that note, both Justin Rose and Tiger had two errors - both in the long game.