News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #250 on: March 28, 2023, 09:49:50 PM »

While the importance of every other category has fallen, the importance of driving has increased over the last two decades




Ben,

Interesting break down.  A few years back I took a look at the results of the 2018-2019 Season of the PGA Tour.

I looked at all the winners for the year and correlated their relative season rank in the following 5 categories:  Driving Distance, GIR, Driving Accuracy, Scrambling, and Putting. 

Not surprisingly the one category that correlated the best to predicting winning was Driving Distance  In that season, 52.4 % of winners on Tour came from players who were in the top 25% of the rankings.  Driving Accuracy correlated the worst at less than 1 in 5 at 19%.  GIR was second at 40.5%, Scrambling and Putting at 33% and 24% respectively.


P.S.  Furthermore, 76.2% of the winners were in the top 50% of Driving Distance in the rankings.  And i'm guessing if I did the same analysis for last year it would be even higher.


« Last Edit: March 28, 2023, 09:53:36 PM by Kalen Braley »

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #251 on: March 28, 2023, 09:59:47 PM »
Not surprisingly the one category that correlated the best to predicting winning was Driving Distance  In that season, 52.4 % of winners on Tour came from players who were in the top 25% of the rankings.  Driving Accuracy correlated the worst at less than 1 in 5 at 19%.  GIR was second at 40.5%, Scrambling and Putting at 33% and 24% respectively.

• Driving accounts for 28% of the scoring advantage of the top players• Approach shot accounts for 36% of the scoring advantage of the top players• Short game and putting accounts for 36% of the scoring advantage of the top players

Approach shots are still where better players separate themselves the most. It's shifted a little since ESC was published, but… even then it was nearly the same. And, it's odd, but it's pretty close to those same numbers (~ 28%, 39%, 19%, 14%) across the board, comparing any group of golfers to any other group. Even 90s shooters to +3 handicaps.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #252 on: March 28, 2023, 10:31:58 PM »
    The reason this rule has been proposed has nothing to do with reducing the advantage longer hitters enjoy. One would think that, on this cite in particular, the reason for the rule change would be celebrated. The rule has been proposed to keep the great old courses from becoming obsolete.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #253 on: March 28, 2023, 10:49:17 PM »
The reason this rule has been proposed has nothing to do with reducing the advantage longer hitters enjoy. One would think that, on this cite in particular, the reason for the rule change would be celebrated. The rule has been proposed to keep the great old courses from becoming obsolete.
They said this:

Quote
The USGA and The R&A set out to address the long-term trend of increased hitting distances and course lengthening that they believe threatens golf’s long-term sustainability and undermines the core principle that a broad and balanced set of playing skills should remain the primary determinant of success in golf.
"Keeping great old courses from becoming obsolete" may be on the list, but it isn't one of the top two (stated) goals.

The sustainability angle is the best angle, IMO, for approaching this. As we all know, the angle you take on something like this matters.  ;)
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #254 on: March 28, 2023, 11:35:46 PM »
Hey, "Last Word" Barzeski if I recall Ukraine had something like 20,000 nuclear missiles at the time the Soviet Union was broken up. Part of the deal (Salt I ?) was the destruction of those nukes. Imagine if they still had those nukes! Whew! They'd be lobbing them into Red Square!   


But I digress....How about every club and ball manufactured after 2005 has be be turned in to your local pro shop where they will be destroyed. You will, of course, be compensated for what will now be illegal equipment. 


I like this idea. Declare this equipment "non conforming" and destroy it!  Make the golf course a safer place for maintenance workers, folks in adjoining fairways, and golf course architects!
LOCK HIM UP!!!

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #255 on: March 29, 2023, 02:33:34 AM »
Wow Erik

I thought I was good at pissing people off haha
You won't ever piss me off, nor have they, Pat. This stuff is just golf. Even though I spend 80-100 hours a week on it… it's just golf.  ;)   Disagreement isn't anger. You can like vanilla while I like chocolate marshmallow.

For what it’s worth - Spot on on the various pro v1 approved balls. A lot of them are previous years’ models that guys are hesitant to change from due to small changes making huge impacts on some players throughout the bag.

And I “make” $150 per lesson.  ;D
It's crazy how sensitive guys are to stuff. I don't think he still is, but I know last year one guy was still playing the 2017 version of a ball… because he "liked" it.

I read an article about Tiger testing out some Bridgestones, and he could tell the difference on short game shots in a little bit of spin here and there.

The idea that guys will/can fully adjust to a "new ball" in a few days is pure folly. They spend weeks in the off-season getting used to a new ball, or testing various ball models, etc.

I hope the disruption this will cause is "worth it." I'd have rather seen them, as I've said, go a bit farther (maybe 8%) and not make it bifurcation.

I am not convinced the USGA /R&A thought it could win the public opinion debate with a mandatory rollback. They have rolled out an idea which they think will be successful with public opinion. I don't believe this rollback goes anywhere near far enough to achieve their stated goals. However, it may temporarily hault the long ball process and provide time to win the further pr battle of deeper rollbacks after the public is convinced that only the long ball hitters are truly effected. It's a risky approach, but I think the only approach the USGA/R&A thought viable. Honestly, something like 17% drive length reduction and far smaller drivers is the real target if we are taking sustainability, safety and classic course preservation seriously. This would make 275 a long average and the odd outlier another 10 or so yards longer on average, just as it was just before Tiger started.

Ciao
« Last Edit: March 29, 2023, 07:53:49 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Ashridge, Kennemer, de Pan, Blackmoor, Eindhoven, Hilversumche, Royal Ostend & Alnmouth

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #256 on: March 29, 2023, 03:47:25 AM »
    The reason this rule has been proposed has nothing to do with reducing the advantage longer hitters enjoy. One would think that, on this cite in particular, the reason for the rule change would be celebrated. The rule has been proposed to keep the great old courses from becoming obsolete.


Jim


With respect, the courses aren't obsolete. It's just that we keep using scores as a benchmark and assume that because course records keep getting lower that somehow the courses are getting worse. And just because Rory/Cam play the courses differently than Jack/Arnie doesn't mean they are obsolete either. Jack and Arnie played them differently than Hogan who played them differently than Vardon/Braid who played them differently than Old Tom and so on. 


Niall

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #257 on: March 29, 2023, 06:58:39 AM »
   Well, maybe obsolete is the wrong word. Less challenging, maybe? Less interesting? And remember, this only applies to the top 1% (or less) of players. Not the rest of us.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #258 on: March 29, 2023, 07:45:08 AM »
    The reason this rule has been proposed has nothing to do with reducing the advantage longer hitters enjoy. One would think that, on this cite in particular, the reason for the rule change would be celebrated. The rule has been proposed to keep the great old courses from becoming obsolete.


Jim


With respect, the courses aren't obsolete. It's just that we keep using scores as a benchmark and assume that because course records keep getting lower that somehow the courses are getting worse. And just because Rory/Cam play the courses differently than Jack/Arnie doesn't mean they are obsolete either. Jack and Arnie played them differently than Hogan who played them differently than Vardon/Braid who played them differently than Old Tom and so on. 


Niall


Niall-I agree the courses aren’t obsolete for 99% of players. They are or are becoming obsolete for the 1% that the USGA is targeting with the proposed rollback. For those that oppose the change what is the fix for elite players at the highest level of the game or should the USGA just look the other way? I don’t believe that a par four hole that played driver/5 iron thirty years ago and now plays driver/wedge is good for golf. From a spectators perspective at least for me driver/wedge is a snore fest and the primary reason why I’ve lost interest in watching the weekly PGA Tour events.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2023, 04:20:08 PM by Tim Martin »

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #259 on: March 29, 2023, 08:58:00 AM »
Based on Brodie's study, at the turn of the century, driving was the lowest ranked factor in relationship to scoring advantage.

If allowed to progress unchecked, by 2034 driving will become the highest ranked factor in relationship to scoring advantage.



A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #260 on: March 29, 2023, 09:30:48 AM »
Based on Brodie's study, at the turn of the century, driving was the lowest ranked factor in relationship to scoring advantage.

If allowed to progress unchecked, by 2034 driving will become the highest ranked factor in relationship to scoring advantage.


Without digging out my copy and searching, can you post the data from Broadie that supports the idea that driving was wasn’t especially important “at the turn of the century”?  (And I’m assuming you must mean 1900 rather than 2000? 1900 would be a pretty difficult study in the absence of Shotlink, which is the statistical basis for  Broadie’s work.)


I’ve read Broadie pretty carefully, and I do not remember any such data from him.  But I’m old, and my memory sometimes fails me; perhaps this is another of those times.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2023, 09:35:04 AM by A.G._Crockett »
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #261 on: March 29, 2023, 09:39:54 AM »
A.G.
By turn of the century I'm speaking of 23 years ago!

I posted a link to the study in question earlier in this thread:

I'm surprised to have not seen any commentary on Mark Broadie's most recent white paper Impact of Distance Changes in Professional Golf, With a Focus on the ShotLink Era

John Challenger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #262 on: March 29, 2023, 09:59:48 AM »
Interesting comment relating to modern technology from Andy Staples in an article by Tony Dear, "Like it does so beautifully at Augusta National where the putative draw bias will come under fire this year with so many of the world's best players relying heavily on a fade from the tee. 'The fade is a more popular shot now because it travels just as far as a draw with today's equipment, and it's more dependable,' says Staples. Is this an area where modern equipment has simplified shotmaking expertise and decision for the best players? I suppose a mountain of data could be offered to obscure what seems obvious here too.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2023, 10:20:10 AM by John Challenger »

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #263 on: March 29, 2023, 10:40:08 AM »
Interesting comment relating to modern technology from Andy Staples in an article by Tony Dear, "Like it does so beautifully at Augusta National where the putative draw bias will come under fire this year with so many of the world's best players relying heavily on a fade from the tee. 'The fade is a more popular shot now because it travels just as far as a draw with today's equipment, and it's more dependable,' says Staples. Is this an area where modern equipment has simplified shotmaking expertise and decision for the best players? I suppose a mountain of data could be offered to obscure what seems obvious here too.


As Scheffler said, when he tries to hit a draw with a driver, the ball has so little spin that it won't stay in the air.


I know, John VdB still thinks it's a bad idea, but I would love to see what happened if the ball was reduced to a weight between the "balloon ball" of 1931 (1.55 oz.) and the modern ball (1.62 oz.).


I've read his essay several times, and think that most of the objections, would be covered by the solid core balls of today, and a lighter ball would certainly curve more. It would also be easier to keep in the air, which would help shorter hitters like seniors and women.

Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Tim Gavrich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #264 on: March 29, 2023, 03:42:40 PM »
The reason this rule has been proposed has nothing to do with reducing the advantage longer hitters enjoy. One would think that, on this cite in particular, the reason for the rule change would be celebrated. The rule has been proposed to keep the great old courses from becoming obsolete.
They said this:

Quote
The USGA and The R&A set out to address the long-term trend of increased hitting distances and course lengthening that they believe threatens golf’s long-term sustainability and undermines the core principle that a broad and balanced set of playing skills should remain the primary determinant of success in golf.
"Keeping great old courses from becoming obsolete" may be on the list, but it isn't one of the top two (stated) goals.
Erik--


It is an obvious corollary to the sustainability goal. Championship courses adding tee boxes and making other setup/architectural compromises in order to challenge the pros as the equipment makes them longer and longer is absolutely an issue of sustainability, not just environmental but financial and practical.
Senior Writer, GolfPass

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #265 on: March 29, 2023, 05:56:34 PM »
A.G.
By turn of the century I'm speaking of 23 years ago!

I posted a link to the study in question earlier in this thread:

I'm surprised to have not seen any commentary on Mark Broadie's most recent white paper Impact of Distance Changes in Professional Golf, With a Focus on the ShotLink Era
Ben, it would be better by far if you had been talking about 1900, since in that case nobody could prove you wrong.

To say that you are misinterpreting the conclusions Broadie's paper would be a vast understatement. I'm not going argue it with you, and anyone else who wishes to can read the paper for themselves. 
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #266 on: March 29, 2023, 08:29:25 PM »
Ben, it would be better by far if you had been talking about 1900, since in that case nobody could prove you wrong.

To say that you are misinterpreting the conclusions Broadie's paper would be a vast understatement. I'm not going argue it with you, and anyone else who wishes to can read the paper for themselves.
I beg your pardon? Let's look at exactly what Broadie wrote.

From page 11:
"Table 2 shows that, on average, the top 40 players in a season (ranked by SG total) gain 28% of their scoring advantage
from driving. This value has been increasing at a rate of 4.5% per decade and is statistically significant with a p-value of 0%. The contribution of approach shots has decreased at a rate of 2.4% per decade. The contribution of putting is effectively unchanged."


From Table 2:

Based upon the current averages and the change per decade Broadie provided, we can extrapolate that 20 years ago the scoring advantages per shot category would have looked something like this:
  • Drive: 19%
  • Approach: 40.8%
  • Short: 20.2%
  • Putt: 20.2%
While Broadie assigned a linear slope to the trend per decade, both in Table 2 and Figure 15,

Figure 15 also illustrates that the relationship is not perfect linear within each decade, the crossover point may not have been perfectly 20 years ago, thus why I used the phrase "turn of the century" to speak to a potential collection of years in which the crossover may have occurred. If this is where you believe my "vast understatement" took place, so be it.



Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #267 on: March 29, 2023, 08:50:15 PM »

But I digress.
I'll say.


I am not convinced the USGA /R&A thought it could win the public opinion debate with a mandatory rollback.
I almost wonder if the manufacturers will push for a mandatory rollback. That way they can continue to sell the same balls to all levels of golf and use the Tour players for marketing purposes as always. I wonder if they won't push that a little in the commentary period.


I don't believe this rollback goes anywhere near far enough to achieve their stated goals.
I agree that 4% or so is not enough. It's a disruption without much gain. Not worth it.


Honestly, something like 17% drive length reduction
No. Rory going from 320.6 to leading the Tour at 271, no.


This would make 275 a long average and the odd outlier another 10 or so yards longer on average, just as it was just before Tiger started.
No, the Tour leader isn't even averaging 275 in your scenario.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #268 on: March 30, 2023, 01:08:01 PM »
This might be of interest. Or maybe not!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j66SJgDt7Gg
Filmed 3 yrs ago so tech may well have moved on since then.
Atb

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #269 on: March 30, 2023, 02:01:05 PM »
Ben, it would be better by far if you had been talking about 1900, since in that case nobody could prove you wrong.

To say that you are misinterpreting the conclusions Broadie's paper would be a vast understatement. I'm not going argue it with you, and anyone else who wishes to can read the paper for themselves.
I beg your pardon? Let's look at exactly what Broadie wrote.

From page 11:
"Table 2 shows that, on average, the top 40 players in a season (ranked by SG total) gain 28% of their scoring advantage
from driving. This value has been increasing at a rate of 4.5% per decade and is statistically significant with a p-value of 0%. The contribution of approach shots has decreased at a rate of 2.4% per decade. The contribution of putting is effectively unchanged."


From Table 2:

Based upon the current averages and the change per decade Broadie provided, we can extrapolate that 20 years ago the scoring advantages per shot category would have looked something like this:
  • Drive: 19%
  • Approach: 40.8%
  • Short: 20.2%
  • Putt: 20.2%
While Broadie assigned a linear slope to the trend per decade, both in Table 2 and Figure 15,

Figure 15 also illustrates that the relationship is not perfect linear within each decade, the crossover point may not have been perfectly 20 years ago, thus why I used the phrase "turn of the century" to speak to a potential collection of years in which the crossover may have occurred. If this is where you believe my "vast understatement" took place, so be it.
1. It is important to note that Broadie's paper is about the top 40 in SG only, rather than about ALL Tour pros.
2. You are on solid ground when you say that over a bit less than the last two decades, driving has become more important to the top 40 players, though it remains significantly less important than approach, which you ignore.
3. The ground becomes somewhat shaky when you say that at "the turn of the century" driving was the least important of the four categories.  Not to quibble, but at the beginning of Broadie's study, driving and putting were essentially the same for the top 40, both FAR behind approach, with short game somewhere in the middle. Perhaps a more accurate way of characterizing the situation in 2006 would have been to say that approach was king for the top 40 pros, and while it still is, driving has become increasingly important, too.

4. The ground becomes quicksand when you say (in the previous post) that "If allowed to progress unchecked, by 2034 driving will become the highest ranked factor in relationship to scoring advantage."  That is, 100%, YOUR conclusion, and not that of Mark Broadie.  Broadie is always analytical and descriptive, never prescriptive or predictive, and he points out that driving increases are a multi-factoral situation.  Technology, technique, agronomy, longer courses, younger and taller golfers all are analyzed as contributing factors to improved driving among the top 40 pros.  One could just as easily conclude that at least some of those other factors won't continue to change in a way that increases driving distance between now and 2034, but again, that's predictive, and that's NOT what Broadie is doing.  You've done a VERY simple math problem based solely on trends less than two decades, and used it to "predict" what might happen in the next decade, when there is actually ZERO evidence for that.
5. Most significantly of all, you seem (at least to me) to be using all this as a defense of the proposed local rule concerning the golf ball.  Interestingly, Broadie doesn't get into the role of the golf ball in this paper; my guess, and it's ONLY that, is because that's the ONE thing about driving that has NOT really changed much since 2006.  Tiger had won at Pebble in 2000 with the new Nike ball, the ProV1 became available to pros later that year, and to the public before the end of 2000.  By 2006, everybody on Tour was using a multi-layer solid core ball with a urethane cover and had been for years.
Whether you are misinterpreting or misusing Broadie's data, the result is the same.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #270 on: March 30, 2023, 02:13:01 PM »
4. The ground becomes quicksand when you say (in the previous post) that "If allowed to progress unchecked, by 2034 driving will become the highest ranked factor in relationship to scoring advantage."  That is, 100%, YOUR conclusion, and not that of Mark Broadie.
A. G.
Where did I claim that it was anything other than my forecast?

My original comment, that you take such offense with, only referenced Broadie's study to define the previous balance in scoring advantage.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #271 on: March 30, 2023, 03:15:07 PM »
AG,

I think the point around the top 40 is a fair one in a vacuum.

However when you consider the top 40 are going to be fully exempt on Tour, auto qualify into all the majors, get invites to the Invitationals. reap massive financial rewards in both endorsements and high finishes, media attention and publicity, etc...its pretty easy for the next 100-150 players (and even other aspiring non-pros) to deduce what can I do and how should I spend my time to get there.  Its a classic 80s era arms-race

In that context I agree completely with Ben's take and even in your inference of "if things remain unchecked"

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #272 on: March 30, 2023, 05:26:27 PM »
AG,

I think the point around the top 40 is a fair one in a vacuum.

However when you consider the top 40 are going to be fully exempt on Tour, auto qualify into all the majors, get invites to the Invitationals. reap massive financial rewards in both endorsements and high finishes, media attention and publicity, etc...its pretty easy for the next 100-150 players (and even other aspiring non-pros) to deduce what can I do and how should I spend my time to get there.  Its a classic 80s era arms-race

In that context I agree completely with Ben's take and even in your inference of "if things remain unchecked"


Kalen,


All well and good, and you MAY be 100% right on all counts.  For my part, I’ll continue to not only love reading Mark Broadie’s work, but object to it being used to forecast, when that forecast is simply using the data to support a preexisting opinion.


To wit, Broadie’s driving distance data isn’t about the golf ball, yet his data is being used here to support a rule about the golf ball.  That’s poor logic, and not “science” at all.


We all have our opinions about this.  Just give it, along with pertinent facts. Broadie’s paper isn’t that.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #273 on: March 30, 2023, 08:28:42 PM »
To wit, Broadie’s driving distance data isn’t about the golf ball, yet his data is being used here to support a rule about the golf ball.  That’s poor logic, and not “science” at all.
This is the nut, here, yes. Broadie's work had almost nothing to do with the golf ball.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, and Garland.

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA Notice to Manufacturers
« Reply #274 on: March 31, 2023, 09:15:08 AM »
To wit, Broadie’s driving distance data isn’t about the golf ball, yet his data is being used here to support a rule about the golf ball.  That’s poor logic, and not “science” at all.
A.G.

For someone who said they didn’t want to argue, you sure are lobbing a lot of shots.

Please point out, specifically, where I directly referenced Brodie’s study on driving distance in connection with the golf ball.

 You keep making inferences that are clearly riling you up, that simply are not accurate. I can appreciate that you worship at the church of Broadie and want to support his work. But when you read something that you may not agree with or understand, rather than being rude and insulting, have you considered asking clarifying questions? This entire exchange could have potentially been fruitful if you had not started on the defensive.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back