Here's how the top-3 finishers ranked in the key performance metrics at the Canadian Open. This was based out of 120 players (click to enlarge):
Playing well at Glen Abbey meant playing well from the Safe Zone and Danger Zone. In Snedeker’s case, he drove it poorly and struck it from the Danger Zone poorly. However, he was brilliant from the Safe Zone and made up for his driving and Danger Zone deficiencies by out-putting and out-Short Gaming the other contenders.
Here is how my picks finished at the Canadian Open.
Matt Kuchar: 18/1 (t-2nd)
Billy Horschel: 33/1 (t-68th)
Chris Kirk: 50/1 (t-21st)
M att Jones: 55/1 (DNP)
Morgan Hoffmann: 55/1 (t-52nd)
Ryan Palmer: 60/1 (t-31st)
Jerry Kelly: 66/1 (DNP)
Nicholas Thompson: 75/1 (t-28th)
Cameron Tringale: 100/1 (t-44th)
Value Pick: Tom Gillis 150/1 (MC)
Here are my picks for the WGC-Bridgestone Invitational
Adam Scott: 12/1
Justin Rose: 22/1
Dustin Johnson: 25/1
Lee Westwood: 25/1
Keegan Bradley: 40/1
Henrik Stenson: 40/1
Jim Furyk: 50/1
Nick Watney: 100/1
John Merrick: 150/1
Value Pick: Russell Henley 150/1
DRIVING EFFECTIVENESS
1. Justin Rose
2. Keegan Bradley
3. Hunter Mahan
4. Boo Weekley
5. Graham DeLaet
6. Jordan Spieth
7. Adam Scott
8. Chez Reavie
9. Henrik Stenson
10. Billy Horschel
182. David Lynn
183. Luke List
184. Johnson Wagner
185. James Driscoll
186. Michael Bradley
187. Tim Herron
188. Casey Wittenberg
189. Aaron Baddeley
190. Mike Weir
191. Andres Gonzales
BIRDIE ZONE PLAY
1. Charlie Wi
2. Scott Langley
3. Kevin Chappell
4. Adam Scott
5. Brian Davis
6. Brandt Snedeker
7. Michael Bradley
8. Tim Clark
9. Luke Donald
10. Robert Karlsson
182. Scott Gardiner
183. Kyle Stanley
184. Matt Jones
185. Graeme McDowell
186. Shawn Stefani
187. Sean O'Hair
188. Jonas Blixt
189. Charlie Beljan
190. Tom Gillis
191. Martin Kaymer
SAFE ZONE
1. Phil Mickelson
2. Ken Duke
3. Chris Kirk
4. Adam Scott
5. Chez Reavie
6. Ross Fisher
7. Jeff Maggert
8. Brandt Snedeker
9. Vijay Singh
10. Jason Bohn
182. Michael Thompson
183. Justin Bolli
184. Alistair Presnell
185. Bobby Gates
186. John Senden
187. Stephen Ames
188. Andrew Svoboda
189. Jason Day
190. Aaron Baddeley
191. Luke List
DANGER ZONE
1. Robert Garrigus
2. Ryan Palmer
3. Daniel Summerhays
4. Kyle Stanley
5. Boo Weekley
6. Graham DeLaet
7. Lee Westwood
8. Greg Owen
9. Charl Schwartzel
10. Rory McIlroy
182. Andres Romero
183. Justin Leonard
184. Kevin Sutherland
185. Ted Potter, Jr.
186. Bobby Gates
187. Andres Gonzales
188. Peter Hanson
189. Aaron Baddeley
190. Vaughn Taylor
191. Aaron Watkins
SHORT GAME PLAY
1. Jim Furyk
2. Jerry Kelly
3. Dustin Johnson
4. Bob Estes
5. Steven Bowditch
6. Justin Leonard
7. Luke Donald
8. Tiger Woods
9. Camilo Villegas
10. Chris Stroud
182. Angel Cabrera
183. Gary Woodland
184. Bobby Gates
185. Scott Gardiner
186. Davis Love III
187. Robert Garrigus
188. Johnson Wagner
189. Nicolas Colsaerts
190. Eric Meierdierks
191. Derek Ernst
PUTTS GAINED
1. Sergio Garcia
2. Greg Chalmers
3. Aaron Baddeley
4. Tiger Woods
5. Stephen Ames
6. Bryce Molder
7. Peter Hanson
8. James Driscoll
9. Sang-Moon Bae
10. Brandt Snedeker
182. Ricky Barnes
183. Ryo Ishikawa
184. Nicolas Colsaerts
185. Greg Owen
186. Will Claxton
187. Ross Fisher
188. Vijay Singh
189. Jeff Gove
190. Lucas Glover
191. Eric Meierdierks
We often hear from professional golfers how important it is to have a “one way miss’”and to be able to “take one side of the golf course out of play” in order to drive the ball more effectively. However, statistical evidence indicates that this is not quite an accurate depiction of how the best golfers in the world effectively drive the ball.
A metric that I have explored quite frequently is “miss bias.” This is the percentage of time a player misses a fairway right or left. What I have found is that there is no direction that is better to miss the fairway. Having a right miss bias is equal to having a left miss bias. Typically, what is more important is the ratio of the miss bias.
Here's a video from AimPoint Golf showing an example of uphill putts having an extremely consistent roll using the 'Perfect Putter.'
We have to remember a few things here:
Optimal speed is roughly 2-3 revolutions per second as it reaches the hole. This is often referred to as 'capture speed.'
As the ball starts to slow down it is more likely to wobble, much like a front bicycle wheel would wobble if a person is struggling to get the bike up a hill.
With uphill putts, the speed of the ball has to be faster as it collides to with the putter and rolls on the green before it reaches its capture speed.
So...the faster the ball speed, the surface imperfections have less influence on the ball.
Conversely, if we are to roll a downhill putt...the optimal capture speed is still 2-3 revolutions per second. But since it is going downhill, the initial speed of the putt will be slower (than it would be for the speed on an uphill putt). And thus the surface imperfections come into play more.
This is a good reason why it's very difficult to putt on aerified greens. If you're left with a downhill putt, it's almost pure guesswork because the slower ball speed will react to imperfections more. Thus, if you catch yourself on aerified or bumpy greens, it's an imperative to try and keep the ball below the cup.
Part I: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/07/3jacks-prep-for-florida-mid-am-part-i.html
From what I’ve encountered with golfers of all levels is that they are caught between two thoughts on strategy with golf. There is the old adage ‘those who fail to plan, plan to fail.’ And there is the other old adage ‘everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face’ (this was not invented by Mike Tyson, it’s a very old boxing phrase).
I believe golf strategy is very important. The issue is that it is very fluid in nature. Meaning, that it changes from shot to shot.
Let’s take the 10th hole at my home course, Walkabout GC, and use it as an example of how golf strategy is ‘fluid’ in nature.
The idea is to favor the left side of the fairway. The water does not really come into play. But, if you look over to the right where I drew a yellow ‘X’; that is the place to avoid. The yellow ‘X’ is a gulley where it is almost impossible to reach the green from due to the poor lie the golfer will likely end up with. The left side not only avoids the gulley on the right, but the lie is usually the flattest on the course and it gives the golfer a better angle into the green.
Obviously, the strategy is to aim for the left part of the hole. However, if we ‘get punched in the face’ and hit it where the yellow ‘X’ is located, we still have to figure out how to strategize the hole from there.
One of the smarter things I’ve ever heard came from Jim Furyk who pointed out that after he hits a bad tee shot on a par-4, he tried to picture that he’s playing another par-4 from where his ball lies. Obviously he wants to ‘birdie’ it from that spot if possible, but he wants to make sure that he doesn’t ‘bogey’ it from that spot. So in this case, if he were to hit his tee shot in the gulley, he would envision himself playing the hole as a par-4 from that tee shot (essentially trying to make no worse than a 5 on the hole).
I believe that in this situation, part of the visualization of the hole should be to picture a ‘new fairway’ and the path to the hole. In the example above, if we were to hit a tee shot in the gulley and tried to play it as a par-4 from there, the hole now plays almost as a dogleg. The fairway is off to our left and the ideal position off our next shot would be to find the left side of the fairway in order to give ourselves a better angle into the hole.
What I see out of many golfers, myself included, is that they either think that any strategy is a lost cause or they give up any semblance of a strategy if they do not hit a shot according to plan.
To me, golf strategy is a must. I just think that golf strategy is usually not overly complicated and it’s about understanding simple factors that will give the golfer the best odds of hitting their shot as close to the hole as they can.
I think simple golf strategies are about understanding basics of when to leave your driver in the bag, which in reality should be the golfer’s last option. It’s about understanding what side of the hole is most advantageous IF the hole is designed that way. It’s about understanding what your up-and-down chances are like from different locations around the green. And it’s about little things like certain shots playing longer than the yardage suggests. Understanding that you’re more likely to make an uphill putt than a downhill putt.
Often times, no real strategy on a golf hole is needed. It’s either too plain or simple and it requires nothing out of the ordinary. Like #1 at North Shore GC, a drive-able par 4 that is fairly straight forward.
Or the hole can be extremely difficult to the point where the golfer has to simply hit quality golf shots. #1 at Walkabout is a great example. The golfer cannot hit anything less than a pretty good tee shot and then a pretty good approach shot. You’re essentially looking to make par and get out of there.
In past tournaments, I have tried to make it about the ‘process’ instead of the ‘results.’ This usually meant goals of:
• No Double Bogeys or Worse • No Back-to-Back Bogeys • No 3-Putts
I have found that worrying about the process presents just as many issues as worrying about the results. For instance, if I double bogey the first hole with a 3-putt, now I’ve just failed to achieve 2 of my ‘process goals.’ And I still have 17 holes to play. It’s not exactly the best way to put yourself in a good frame of mind to come back and turn in a good score.
The other part is that I believe it starts to give a golfer a conservative mentality. They start thinking about ‘not screwing up’ instead of getting shots close. And as my research has shown, more often than not golfers screw up because they try to not screw up and they leave themselves with more difficult 2nd shots. This is something I will discuss in 2013 Pro Golf Synopsis quite extensively.
Instead, I won’t have any particular goals that I will set. I will just try to rack up birdie opportunities that are inside 15 feet and par saves that are inside 5 feet.
Justin Rose: 16/1 (MC) Phil Mickelson: 16/1 (1st) Adam Scott: 20/1 (t-3rd) Dustin Johnson: 33/1 (t-32nd) Matt Kuchar: 40/1 (t-15th) Jordan Speith: 125/1 (t-44th) Robert Karlsson: 150/1 (MC) Graham DeLaet: 150/1 (t-83rd) Marc Leishman: 200/1 (MC)
Value Pick: Luke Guthrie 300/1 (MC)
Here are my picks for the Canadian Open:
Matt Kuchar: 18/1
Billy Horschel: 33/1
Chris Kirk: 50/1
Matt Jones: 55/1
Morgan Hoffmann: 55/1
Ryan Palmer: 60/1
Jerry Kelly: 66/1
Nicholas Thompson: 75/1
Cameron Tringale: 100/1
Value Pick: Tom Gillis 150/1
I thought the British Open was one of the more exciting ones to watch in recent memory as we had roughly 10 different players all in contention going into the back nine on Sunday.
One of the issues that tends to ruin the Open for many fans is how the weather can change so drastically and hurt a golfer’s chances just by getting a bad tee time. We didn’t have that here this weekend as the weather was moderately nice for Scotland. The wind was there, but it was blowing about at 12-15 mph and didn’t seem to get above that.
However, the recent weather conditions made it difficult to really appreciate Muirfield. The course resembled some of the courses I grew up playing in Upstate New York during the summer when there is little in the way of irrigation. It looked dry, hard and fast. Outside of the Masters, it’s hard to get a real feel for the any distinctive features of golf holes in the other majors. But I find that to be most difficult at the British Open given the links design and the holes at Muirfield started to all run together.
A big congratulations goes to Mickelson for winning the Open in brilliant fashion, including birdieing 4 of the last 6 holes. I would put that round up there with Charl Schwartzel’s final round heroics at the 2011 Masters where he snuck up on everybody, birdied the last 4 holes and won a heavily contested Green Jacket. From a drama perspective, it was not as beautiful as say Nicklaus’ Augusta victory in 1986. But, I could appreciate it more than Ernie Els’ victory last year as Mickelson ‘won’ the Open instead of having Adam Scott ‘lose’ the Open.
There were a few big things that I took away from the Open.
Mickelson has an entirely better demeanor on the course than Tiger (and most players on Tour)
We’ve seen this all year from Lefty, even at the Masters where he played terribly. He emphatically states his confidence that he can win the tournament after each round. And it seems organic rather than a false sense of confidence. Tiger seems to saunter around the course more, particularly after hitting a bad shot. Phil has entirely more composure which is odd given that Tiger generally strikes it better than Phil. In the end, this allows Phil to hit better shots down the stretch than Tiger.
Tiger is hurt by his conservative play off the tee.
I think the 2008 PGA Championship lost to YE Yang has set a precedent for Tiger. In that final round Tiger played extremely conservative off the tee while Yang continually blasted his driver well past Woods’ 3-wood and 2-iron off the tee. The end result was Yang had much closer approaches. Tiger could hit those longer approaches amazingly close given the distance he was hitting them from, but Yang would continually put them inside Tiger and that’s why he won.
It’s very difficult to play conservatively and be successful on Tour. Tiger can do it because he’s excellent with his 3-wood off the tee and is an excellent long-iron player. He also has a knack for getting hot with the putter from long distance.
But, he’s putting his odds against him when he plays conservatively. And eventually those long putts will not fall because they don’t consistently fall for anybody on Tour, ever. Perhaps his conservative play off the tee this year is due to not trusting his driver. Either way, he needs to be able to pull the driver out of his bag much more often and be able to hit quality shots with the driver. There’s a reason why he’s never won a major when he has not had the lead after the 3rd round.
The Mickelson way works for now.
There has been a debate about Phil Mickelson’s ballstriking skill. As I have stated repeatedly in Pro Golf Synopsis, Phil is a good to excellent irons player. However, he’s a lousy driver of the ball. I have yet to see any other data that can refute that.
I think a major problem for Phil is that his driver doesn’t quite fit him. At the US Open he didn’t carry a driver. Instead he utilized a 43-1/4” 3-wood with a 12° loft. He could hit it up to 300 yards, but the shorter shaft and subsequently heavier club allowed him to hit it off the tee much more effectively than if he had used his 45-1/2” driver. And even in the end, the 3-wood inaccuracies stymied him a bit at Merion.
When Mickelson wins, he wins in spite of his driving. Here’s a look at his current metrics going into Muirfield:
Driving Effectiveness: 155th (out of 190 golfers)
Birdie Zone play: 27th Safe Zone play: 1st Danger Zone play: 54th
Short Game Play: 31st Putts Gained: 11th
And that has been a bit of a dip in performance from the Danger Zone for Mickelson, who usually ranks in the top-20 in the category.
At Muirfield, everybody was hitting a lot of irons off the tees and thus Mickelson was no longer at the disadvantage as he would lose strokes if he had to hit driver, like he did at Bay Hill, Sawgrass and Greenbrier (all courses were driver use is frequent and Phil missed the cut each time). Instead, Mickelson was now at an advantage off the tee because most of the golfers were using long irons and they do not strike the ball with their long irons as well as he does.
It will be interesting to see what happens at Oak Hill in August as having played that course a few times, there’s no way one can get around the course not hitting driver. And the punishment from the rough is severe. Perhaps Phil goes to the 3-wood off the tee again (which may serve him well), but I think he has a long road to hoe to try and get into contention there.
Jordan Spieth records his first career PGA Tour victory at the age of 19.
Here is a look at how the top-3 finishers ranked in the Tournament in the key performance metrics. This was based out of 115 golfers.
(Click to Enlarge)
Here is how my picks finished at the John Deere Classic:
Keegan Bradley: 20/1 (t-61st)
Jordan Spieth: 33/1 (1st)
Brendon de Jonge: 40/1 (t-54th)
Chris Kirk: 55/1 (t-22nd)
Ted Potter, Jr.: 66/1 (MC)
KJ Choi: 80/1 (t-33rd)
Kevin Streelman: 100/1 (t-44th)
Jerry Kelly: 80/1 (t-4th)
Bryce Molder: 100/1 (t-27th)
Value Pick: Chez Reavie: 150/1 (t-15th)
Here are my picks for the British Open:
Justin Rose: 16/1
Phil Mickelson: 16/1
Adam Scott: 20/1
Dustin Johnson: 33/1
Matt Kuchar: 40/1
Jordan Speith: 125/1
Robert Karlsson: 150/1
Graham DeLaet: 150/1
Marc Leishman: 200/1
Value Pick: Luke Guthrie 300/1
DRIVING EFFECTIVENESS
1. Rose, Justin
2. Bradley, Keegan
3. Mahan, Hunter
4. DeLaet, Graham
5. Weekley, Boo
6. Spieth, Jordan
7. Reavie, Chez
8. Scott, Adam
9. Horschel, Billy
10. Streelman, Kevin
181. Wagner, Johnson
182. Marino, Steve
183. List, Luke
184. Driscoll, James
185. Herron, Tim
186. Bradley, Michael
187. Wittenberg, Casey
188. Baddeley, Aaron
189. Weir, Mike
190. Gonzales, Andres
BIRDIE ZONE PLAY
1. Chappell, Kevin
2. Wi, Charlie
3. Scott, Adam
4. Schwartzel, Charl
5. Langley, Scott
6. Davis, Brian
7. Clark, Tim
8. Haley II, Paul
9. Snedeker, Brandt
10. Woods, Tiger
181. Jones, Matt
182. Ogilvie, Joe
183. Presnell, Alistair
184. Stefani, Shawn
185. O'Hair, Sean
186. Blixt, Jonas
187. Beljan, Charlie
188. Gardiner, Scott
189. Gillis, Tom
190. Kaymer, Martin
SAFE ZONE
1. Mickelson, Phil
2. Duke, Ken
3. Kirk, Chris
4. Scott, Adam
5. Reavie, Chez
6. Fisher, Ross
7. Stadler, Kevin
8. Singh, Vijay
9. Maggert, Jeff
10. Snedeker, Brandt
181. Ridings, Tag
182. Claxton, Will
183. Ames, Stephen
184. Day, Jason
185. Senden, John
186. Marino, Steve
187. List, Luke
188. Baddeley, Aaron
189. Svoboda, Andrew
190. Gates, Bobby
DANGER ZONE
1. Garrigus, Robert
2. Palmer, Ryan
3. Summerhays, Daniel
4. DeLaet, Graham
5. Schwartzel, Charl
6. Weekley, Boo
7. Owen, Greg
8. Westwood, Lee
9. Furyk, Jim
10. McIlroy, Rory
181. Wittenberg, Casey
182. Gonzales, Andres
183. Claxton, Will
184. Gates, Bobby
185. Potter, Jr., Ted
186. Hanson, Peter
187. Baddeley, Aaron
188. Watkins, Aaron
189. Taylor, Vaughn
190. Marino, Steve
SHORT GAME PLAY
1. Furyk, Jim
2. Kelly, Jerry
3. Johnson, Dustin
4. Estes, Bob
5. Donald, Luke
6. Bowditch, Steven
7. Stroud, Chris
8. Leonard, Justin
9. Woods, Tiger
10. Villegas, Camilo
181. Cabrera, Angel
182. Hoffman, Charley
183. Woodland, Gary
184. Gates, Bobby
185. Wagner, Johnson
186. Garrigus, Robert
187. Gardiner, Scott
188. Colsaerts, Nicolas
189. Ernst, Derek
190. Meierdierks, Eric
PUTTS GAINED
1. Garcia, Sergio
2. Chalmers, Greg
3. Ames, Stephen
4. Woods, Tiger
5. Driscoll, James
6. Donald, Luke
7. Baddeley, Aaron
8. Molder, Bryce
9. Hanson, Peter
10. Henley, Russell
181. Colsaerts, Nicolas
182. Byrd, Jonathan
183. Fisher, Ross
184. Gove, Jeff
185. Owen, Greg
186. Claxton, Will
187. Singh, Vijay
188. Tomasulo, Peter
189. Meierdierks, Eric
190. Glover, Lucas
Here's another golfer who hits a terrible shot and once again, we see that 'looking up' or 'picking up their head' did not exist. Instead, issues with the low point and path were the culprit in this poor shot.
Part I: 3jack.blogspot.com/2013/07/3jacks-prep-for-florida-mid-am-part-i.html
From what I’ve encountered with golfers of all levels is that they are caught between two thoughts on strategy with golf. There is the old adage ‘those who fail to plan, plan to fail.’ And there is the other old adage ‘everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face’ (this was not invented by Mike Tyson, it’s a very old boxing phrase).
I believe golf strategy is very important. The issue is that it is very fluid in nature. Meaning, that it changes from shot to shot.
Let’s take the 10th hole at my home course, Walkabout GC, and use it as an example of how golf strategy is ‘fluid’ in nature.
The idea is to favor the left side of the fairway. The water does not really come into play. But, if you look over to the right where I drew a yellow ‘X’; that is the place to avoid. The yellow ‘X’ is a gulley where it is almost impossible to reach the green from due to the poor lie the golfer will likely end up with. The left side not only avoids the gulley on the right, but the lie is usually the flattest on the course and it gives the golfer a better angle into the green.
Obviously, the strategy is to aim for the left part of the hole. However, if we ‘get punched in the face’ and hit it where the yellow ‘X’ is located, we still have to figure out how to strategize the hole from there.
One of the smarter things I’ve ever heard came from Jim Furyk who pointed out that after he hits a bad tee shot on a par-4, he tried to picture that he’s playing another par-4 from where his ball lies. Obviously he wants to ‘birdie’ it from that spot if possible, but he wants to make sure that he doesn’t ‘bogey’ it from that spot. So in this case, if he were to hit his tee shot in the gulley, he would envision himself playing the hole as a par-4 from that tee shot (essentially trying to make no worse than a 5 on the hole).
I believe that in this situation, part of the visualization of the hole should be to picture a ‘new fairway’ and the path to the hole. In the example above, if we were to hit a tee shot in the gulley and tried to play it as a par-4 from there, the hole now plays almost as a dogleg. The fairway is off to our left and the ideal position off our next shot would be to find the left side of the fairway in order to give ourselves a better angle into the hole.
What I see out of many golfers, myself included, is that they either think that any strategy is a lost cause or they give up any semblance of a strategy if they do not hit a shot according to plan.
To me, golf strategy is a must. I just think that golf strategy is usually not overly complicated and it’s about understanding simple factors that will give the golfer the best odds of hitting their shot as close to the hole as they can.
I think simple golf strategies are about understanding basics of when to leave your driver in the bag, which in reality should be the golfer’s last option. It’s about understanding what side of the hole is most advantageous IF the hole is designed that way. It’s about understanding what your up-and-down chances are like from different locations around the green. And it’s about little things like certain shots playing longer than the yardage suggests. Understanding that you’re more likely to make an uphill putt than a downhill putt.
Often times, no real strategy on a golf hole is needed. It’s either too plain or simple and it requires nothing out of the ordinary. Like #1 at North Shore GC, a drive-able par 4 that is fairly straight forward.
Or the hole can be extremely difficult to the point where the golfer has to simply hit quality golf shots. #1 at Walkabout is a great example. The golfer cannot hit anything less than a pretty good tee shot and then a pretty good approach shot. You’re essentially looking to make par and get out of there.
In past tournaments, I have tried to make it about the ‘process’ instead of the ‘results.’ This usually meant goals of:
• No Double Bogeys or Worse
• No Back-to-Back Bogeys
• No 3-Putts
I have found that worrying about the process presents just as many issues as worrying about the results. For instance, if I double bogey the first hole with a 3-putt, now I’ve just failed to achieve 2 of my ‘process goals.’ And I still have 17 holes to play. It’s not exactly the best way to put yourself in a good frame of mind to come back and turn in a good score.
The other part is that I believe it starts to give a golfer a conservative mentality. They start thinking about ‘not screwing up’ instead of getting shots close. And as my research has shown, more often than not golfers screw up because they try to not screw up and they leave themselves with more difficult 2nd shots. This is something I will discuss in 2013 Pro Golf Synopsis quite extensively.
Instead, I won’t have any particular goals that I will set. I will just try to rack up birdie opportunities that are inside 15 feet and par saves that are inside 5 feet.
I’m going to try something new with the PGA Tour Rundowns and show how the top-3 finishers ranked in each of the major metrics for that particular tournament. For the Greenbrier, there were 125 players that I had that qualified statistically.
So, the Greenbrier came down to the putter and Short Game for Blixt along with some long shots from 225-275 yards. Typically, the winners of tournaments finish in the top-10 in Putts Gaines. So, Blixt’s putting is nothing new. But, he struck it quite poorly and was so incredible with his putter and had such a good tournament around the green that he was able to come out with the victory. Judging by the numbers, Johnson Wagner would have typically won the tournament out of the 3 players listed.
Here’s how my picks did at the Greenbrier:
Phil Mickelson: 12/1 (MC)
Webb Simpson: 14/1 (t-41st)
Graham DeLaet: 25/1 (t-30th)
Jordan Spieth: 33/1 (t-23rd)
Roberto Castro: 50/1 (MC)
Kevin Chappell: 50/1 (t-41st)
Luke Guthrie: 125/1 (MC)
Chad Campbell: 125/1 (t-41st)
Jeff Maggert: 200/1 (MC)
Value Pick: Brad Fritsch 250/1 (t-41st)
Here are my picks for the John Deere Classic:
Keegan Bradley: 20/1
Jordan Spieth: 33/1
Brendon de Jonge: 40/1
Chris Kirk: 55/1
Ted Potter, Jr.: 66/1
KJ Choi: 80/1
Kevin Streelman: 100/1
Jerry Kelly: 80/1
Bryce Molder: 100/1
Value Pick: Chez Reavie: 150/1
DRIVING EFFECTIVENESS
1. Rose, Justin
2. Mahan, Hunter
3. Bradley, Keegan
4. DeLaet, Graham
5. Weekley, Boo
6. Scott, Adam
7. Reavie, Chez
8. Spieth, Jordan
9. Horschel, Billy
10. Stenson, Henrik
176. Haley II, Paul
177. Marino, Steve
178. List, Luke
179. Driscoll, James
180. Williams, Lee
181. Herron, Tim
182. Bradley, Michael
183. Wittenberg, Casey
184. Baddeley, Aaron
185. Weir, Mike
BIRDIE ZONE
1. Wi, Charlie
2. Chappell, Kevin
3. Scott, Adam
4. Haley II, Paul
5. Schwartzel, Charl
6. Clark, Tim
7. Langley, Scott
8. Bradley, Michael
9. Snedeker, Brandt
10. Woods, Tiger
176. Ogilvie, Joe
177. Daly, John
178. Beljan, Charlie
179. Stefani, Shawn
180. Jones, Matt
181. O'Hair, Sean
182. Blixt, Jonas
183. Gardiner, Scott
184. Gillis, Tom
185. Kaymer, Martin
SAFE ZONE
1. Mickelson, Phil
2. Duke, Ken
3. Scott, Adam
4. Kirk, Chris
5. Fisher, Ross
6. Reavie, Chez
7. Singh, Vijay
8. Stadler, Kevin
9. Maggert, Jeff
10. Sabbatini, Rory
176. Daly, John
177. Ames, Stephen
178. Herman, Jim
179. Day, Jason
180. Marino, Steve
181. Senden, John
182. Gates, Bobby
183. Ridings, Tag
184. Baddeley, Aaron
185. List, Luke
DANGER ZONE
1. Garrigus, Robert
2. Palmer, Ryan
3. Presnell, Alistair
4. Owen, Greg
5. DeLaet, Graham
6. Summerhays, Daniel
7. Schwartzel, Charl
8. Watney, Nick
9. Westwood, Lee
10. Weekley, Boo
176. Leonard, Justin
177. Bowditch, Steven
178. Claxton, Will
179. Gates, Bobby
180. Potter, Jr., Ted
181. Hanson, Peter
182. Watkins, Aaron
183. Baddeley, Aaron
184. Taylor, Vaughn
185. Marino, Steve
SHORT GAME PLAY
1. Furyk, Jim
2. Kelly, Jerry
3. Johnson, Dustin
4. Estes, Bob
5. Donald, Luke
6. Stroud, Chris
7. Bowditch, Steven
8. Leonard, Justin
9. Villegas, Camilo
10. Woods, Tiger
176. Woodland, Gary
177. Hoffman, Charley
178. Daly, John
179. Wagner, Johnson
180. Gates, Bobby
181. Garrigus, Robert
182. Gardiner, Scott
183. Colsaerts, Nicolas
184. Ernst, Derek
185. Meierdierks, Eric
PUTTS GAINED
1. Chalmers, Greg
2. Garcia, Sergio
3. Ames, Stephen
4. Woods, Tiger
5. Baddeley, Aaron
6. Driscoll, James
7. Donald, Luke
8. Hanson, Peter
9. Molder, Bryce
10. Henley, Russell
176. Castro, Roberto
177. Colsaerts, Nicolas
178. Mathis, David
179. Fisher, Ross
180. Singh, Vijay
181. Owen, Greg
182. Claxton, Will
183. Tomasulo, Peter
184. Meierdierks, Eric
185. Glover, Lucas
While my research and work with Pro Golf Synopsis is largely focused around analyzing Tour data, the objective behind the research was to understand the game better and to be able to apply the information to all golfers.
I feel that 2013 Pro Golf Synopsis will delve more into the helping all golfers with their game. In this series, I will examine the tournament that I plan on playing in using my research data.
Last year was a bit difficult for me. I made some major strides in my ballstriking, but right before the two tournaments I played in (FSGA Amateur and FSGA Mid-Amateur); my swing fell apart with the driver. In both tournaments I struck the irons quite well, but a case of the snap hooks with the driver killed me in both tournaments. In the FSGA Amateur qualifier, I simply could not get off the tee until the 14th hole. In the Mid-Amateur qualifier, it took me six holes to start hitting the driver. But, those first six holes along with putting issues and some bad breaks prevented me from qualifying.
Since those tournaments I’ve made some adjustments to my swing and my equipment, most notably the change in my driver specifications. The driver is now ¾” shorter than the old driver. It is heavier in static weight with more weight in the shaft. I’ve also altered my irons going to the Wishon 575MMC model and have matched the Balance Index with those clubs. And at this current time, I believe I will stick with my new YAR putter.
For this year, I am going to only play in the Mid-Am qualifier. This year’s FSGA Amateur qualifier is at a private course. While I think the FSGA does a top notch job, perhaps better than any state golf association in the country; I don’t like the fact that the qualifiers are at a private club.
The Mid-Am will be held again at Legacy Club at Alaqua Lakes. We played the qualifier there last year. It played to roughly 6,900 yards as they moved the tees up on a few holes. I shot a 78 (43 on the back nine which I played first, 35 on the front nine). It’s a Tom Fazio design that is a private club, but one can get tee times to at TeeTimesUSA.com.
***
One of the mistakes I made in 2012 was that I felt that since I play to a +1 handicap that in order for me to take my game to the next level, I would need to work on my Danger Zone play the most, then my putting and then my driving. After doing more research in actual amateur events with the help of a friend of mine, an Economics professor, we started to that as the handicaps get higher the more important driving becomes and the less important Danger Zone play becomes. Putting is roughly the second most important part of the game towards improving a score regardless of handicap.
For a golfer like myself that does not have a high handicap, the difference between driving, putting and Danger Zone play becomes almost minute if you are going to take the game to the next level. Driving is still the most important, but putting and Danger Zone play are much closer to it than say the 12 handicapper where improving their driving will have a much larger influence on their improvement in scores. I ended up placing so much importance on Danger Zone play that I neglected issues with my driver too much. Had I been one of the most effective players in the field in either qualifier off the tee; I would have likely qualified for both tournaments.
As I mentioned, the big issue with the driver last year was the snap hooks. Between the 2 qualifiers, I counted 11 snap hook type shots out of 28 drives. I ended up with 9 impeded shots on those 28 drives as well. With that said, it’s a testament to my ability with the irons as I was able to make it competitive despite driving the ball about as bad as I have ever driven the ball off the tee.
The shortening of the driver has helped tremendously with improving the accuracy and precision off the tee. And on average, I hit the ball further off the tee with the shorter driver since the launch angle and spin rate has improved. My swing has improved as well. My bad miss now is usually a steered block cut. Lately, I have been hitting that about once a round and then I have to recover. I do think that as I work on some of the mechanics that will become less frequent. My irons play is decent and I really like my putting with the YAR putter, but it’s too small of a sample size to judge right now.
I also feel like the change of my ‘home course’ is very beneficial. It’s like Dr. Rob Bell says about practice, you need to make it more difficult than tournament time. If you can do that, then playing the tournament becomes a breeze. Walkabout Golf Club is one of the most difficult courses in all of Florida, IMO. I would stack up the difficulty of holes #1 thru #12 against any of the first 12 holes on any course in Florida. Especially when the wind is blowing. I have found that this is beneficial when I play other courses because Walkabout GC demands nothing less than a quality tee shot on 8 different holes (#1, #2, #4, #6, #8, #9, #12, #18). It has 4 extremely difficult par-3’s and the course is plenty long (7,146).
In the next part of the series I will examine the strategy behind the course.
Adam Scott (10/1): t-57th
Bo Van Pelt (25/1): MC
Graham DeLaet (28/1): t-8th
Charley Hoffman (40/1): t-28th
Freddie Jacobson (50/1): MC
Russell Henley (50/1): t-34th
Gary Woodland (100/1): t-16th
John Merrick (125/1): MC
Value Pick: Daniel Summerhays (150/1): MC
Here are my picks for the Greenbrier:
Phil Mickelson: 12/1
Webb Simpson: 14/1
Graham DeLaet: 25/1
Jordan Spieth: 33/1
Roberto Castro: 50/1
Kevin Chappell: 50/1
Luke Guthrie: 125/1
Chad Campbell: 125/1
Jeff Maggert: 200/1
Value Pick: Brad Fritsch 250/1
Here are my updated rankings:
DRIVING EFFECTIVENESS
1. Rose, Justin
2. Mahan, Hunter
3. Bradley, Keegan
4. DeLaet, Graham
5. Weekley, Boo
6. Scott, Adam
7. Stenson, Henrik
8. Spieth, Jordan
9. Horschel, Billy
10. Reavie, Chez
176. Curtis, Ben
177. Driscoll, James
178. Wagner, Johnson
179. List, Luke
180. Williams, Lee
181. Herron, Tim
182. Bradley, Michael
183. Wittenberg, Casey
184. Baddeley, Aaron
185. Weir, Mike
BIRDIE ZONE
1. Wi, Charlie
2. Chappell, Kevin
3. Scott, Adam
4. Schwartzel, Charl
5. Haley II, Paul
6. Davis, Brian
7. Clark, Tim
8. Campbell, Chad
9. Langley, Scott
10. Snedeker, Brandt
176. Romero, Andres
177. Ogilvie, Joe
178. Gardiner, Scott
179. Daly, John
180. Stefani, Shawn
181. Blixt, Jonas
182. O'Hair, Sean
183. Jones, Matt
184. Gillis, Tom
185. Kaymer, Martin
SAFE ZONE
1. Mickelson, Phil
2. Duke, Ken
3. Scott, Adam
4. Kirk, Chris
5. Fisher, Ross
6. Reavie, Chez
7. Stadler, Kevin
8. Maggert, Jeff
9. Singh, Vijay
10. Snedeker, Brandt
176. Senden, John
177. Marino, Steve
178. Park, Jin
179. Ames, Stephen
180. Daly, John
181. Streb, Robert
182. Baddeley, Aaron
183. List, Luke
184. Herman, Jim
185. Ridings, Tag
DANGER ZONE
1. Garrigus, Robert
2. Palmer, Ryan
3. Presnell, Alistair
4. Weekley, Boo
5. Schwartzel, Charl
6. DeLaet, Graham
7. Owen, Greg
8. Westwood, Lee
9. Furyk, Jim
10. McIlroy, Rory
176. Bowditch, Steven
177. Curtis, Ben
178. Romero, Andres
179. Claxton, Will
180. Watkins, Aaron
181. Gates, Bobby
182. Baddeley, Aaron
183. Hanson, Peter
184. Marino, Steve
185. Taylor, Vaughn
SHORT GAME PLAY
1. Furyk, Jim
2. Kelly, Jerry
3. Johnson, Dustin
4. Estes, Bob
5. Donald, Luke
6. Leonard, Justin
7. Stroud, Chris
8. Villegas, Camilo
9. Woods, Tiger
10. Bowditch, Steven
176. Hoffman, Charley
177. Woodland, Gary
178. Wagner, Johnson
179. Herman, Jim
180. Garrigus, Robert
181. Gates, Bobby
182. Gardiner, Scott
183. Colsaerts, Nicolas
184. Ernst, Derek
185. Meierdierks, Eric
PUTTS GAINED
1. Chalmers, Greg
2. Ames, Stephen
3. Garcia, Sergio
4. Woods, Tiger
5. Baddeley, Aaron
6. Donald, Luke
7. Hanson, Peter
8. Mickelson, Phil
9. Driscoll, James
10. Kuchar, Matt
176. Castro, Roberto
177. Mathis, David
178. Singh, Vijay
179. Colsaerts, Nicolas
180. Fisher, Ross
181. Claxton, Will
182. Glover, Lucas
183. Meierdierks, Eric
184. Tomasulo, Peter
185. Owen, Greg
Over the past six months I had a lot of readers ask me about the YAR Putter. I tried to look up information on the putter, but could not find anything that I thought was unique about it. That was until I started reading posts from Geoff Mangum’s site (http://www.puttingzone.com/) on the design of the putter and I started to better understand what the YAR putter was about. I received my YAR putter this past Thursday and have been using it ever since.
Before the YAR putter, I had been using my Edel putter. I still think Edel makes the finest putters out on the market. In fact, my feeling was that if the YAR putter doesn’t work, I can still go back to my Edel putter. But the reason for trying the YAR putter was that I felt that the design was different enough and advantageous enough that it warranted me giving it a try.
The YAR putter was designed by Dr. Essay Anne Vanderbilt (aka Dr. V). She is not a golfer and designed the putter for a friend with arthritis. Dr. V works for the Department of Defense and was one of the main designers of the B-2 Stealth Bomber.
There are 2 main concepts of the YAR putter:
1. Create a design where the putter head ‘flies’ during the stroke like an airplane or fighter jet is designed to fly thru the air.
2. Create a design where the putter head is stable as it collides with the ball at impact, much like an airplane or fighter jet is stable as it collides with objects in flight.
But the main part is that the YAR putter is designed almost the exact opposite as putters are designed today. And that is what makes it very unique and I believe beneficial for many golfers.
***
One of Mangum’s chief complaints about putter designs is that they are apt to make the golfer open the blade at impact. First, we essentially have 3 putter designs, ‘full toe hang’, ‘half toe hang’ and ‘face balanced.’ Here’s a video explaining the differences.
With the toe hang putters, they frequently cause the golfer to open the blade at impact. One of Mangum’s suggestions is that the golfer has to grip the putter tighter in order to not allow the vectors of the putter to open the blade up.
While that may sound simple, it can create the issue of trying to determine how tight to grip the putter. Too tight and you have too much tension. Not tight enough and the blade is more likely to open up. I also feel with tighter grips the golfer ends up making a more conscious putting stroke instead of being able to freely swing the arms and the putter back and forward. I feel that the best way to make good contact is with a free arm swing. I think the better putters on Tour that use toe hang putters are good at gripping the putter tight enough while producing a free arm swing and have learned to prevent that blade from opening up. Not always easy to do.
Conversely, the face balance putters present much of the same issue. In particular, the ‘High MOI’ putters. That’s why I have avoided those putters like the Taylor Made Spider because most people I’ve seen putt with the Spider cannot consistently make short putts.
Ironically, David Edel told me the issue with those High MOI putters is that all of the MOI is towards the back end of the putter. And that causes golfers to leave the face open at impact and miss putts to the right. That is why Edel created a ‘Torque Balanced’ putter which is virtually impossible to leave the blade open at impact.
What YAR has created is a putter with virtually *no* MOI. This is exactly the opposite of the High MOI putters. And according to Dr. V, this is in conjunction with the physics that aerospace engineers use.
One look at the putter and we start to see some things that take the characteristics of an airplane.
***
The first part of the process is getting fitted for the putter. This can be done online. You will need to plug in some measurements on their Web site. They do not charge you until they go over your measurements in a phone call. Here’s the video showing their fitting process:
I actually had the numbers incorrect. Thankfully, they called to notify me that the numbers didn’t make a lot of sense. I’ve been told that this is quite common which is why they call customers first before they charge them and ship out the putter.
I believe the reason why my numbers were initially incorrect was that I was fitting myself for your normal putter.
For starters, the YAR putter will be MUCH longer than your typical putter. My Edel Putter is 34” long. The YAR putter is 38-1/4” long.
The reason for this is that the YAR putter is designed so one can look at the CUP comfortably while making their stroke (which I will get to in a bit). We do not want to crouch over like we do with a normal length putter. So there is a good possibility that the measurements you make will be too short in length and too flat of a lie angle.
The putter costs $270 which includes a face plate and shipping. I received my putter 1 week from the date I plugged my measurements online.
***
What intrigued me most about the YAR putter is it is designed to allow the golfer to look at the cup while making their putting stroke. Ever since my junior golf days, I always thought that being able to look at the cup while putting would be advantageous if the golfer could execute it. I always felt that one of the difficult parts of putting was ‘memorizing’ the stroke you had to take in order to have the right speed for the putt.
The issue for me was the execution. It’s very easy to mis-hit a putt as it is. Stroking the putter while looking at the cup makes those mis-hits more likely. With the YAR design, we can see how it is much more stable on mis-hits than other putters. Just take a look at these videos from Kelvin Miyahira
So, the YAR putter design is created to make a ‘good stroke’ even when looking at the cup. And if you mis-hit it, the YAR putter can handle the mis-hit because it’s extremely stable thru impact.
Here’s a video of Robbie Camacho putting with a YAR putter. Notice how he is looking at the hole every time he strokes the putter.
I also became more interested in the ‘looking at the hole while putting’ technique as recently Boo Weekley has greatly improved his putting while working with his instructor, Scott Hamilton. SAM Puttlab data shows that the best putters on Tour have a clubhead speed that goes about the same in speed back as it does in the thru stroke.
However, the best putters reach peak acceleration of the putter head right before impact. When Weekley’s data was taken on the SAM Puttlab they found that his peak acceleration was *after* impact. And in order to cure that, they started having Weekley look at the cup while he stroked the putter in his pre-shot routine. From there, his goal was to ‘memorize’ that stroke and he has gone from being by far the worst putter on Tour to currently ranking 173rd out of 185th (which is a big improvement). So I tend to believe that if looking at the cup can improve one’s acceleration profile of their putting stroke, then having a putter where you can look at the cup and putt may be extremely beneficial.
***
The putter itself is much heavier than your typical putter. One simple reason is that it is much longer. My YAR putter is 13% longer than my Edel putter.
The head is certainly an unusual design.
It’s actually a smaller head than it appears, even when you have the putter in your hand and you are putting it. The length from heel to toe is 1-5/8”. My Edel is 3-3/4” from heel to toe.
Here’s a look at the putter from down the shaft
I’m sure it will not win any beauty awards. For me, I will putt with a pink flamingo if I make more putts. But, I do find some irony in this putter considered to be ‘ugly’ as that is what people used to say about the PING Anser when it first came out. Also, if you are looking at the hole you won’t see it very much
I expected the putter to feel lighter, particularly in the head section. But, it did not feel that radical to me. However, I did find that it was very easy to make a little arced stroke back and thru. I tend to struggle with a ‘cut-across’ stroke due to my right aim bias. The Edel putter has helped repair that. With the YAR putter, it naturally swings back and thru on an arc. It also feel s virtually impossible to leave the blade open at impact.
When I look at the ball while putting, it is almost impossible to not make quality contact. The head is so short and compact that it makes very nice feeling contact.
The test was when I would look at the hole while stroking the putter.
What I found was that I can consistently make quality contact while looking at the hole. I struggled a bit at first. But, I found that you have to use the entire length of the putter. If you grip down or if you crouch like you would with a standard putter, you’re not going to make good contact.
If you use the entire length of the club and look at the hole, the putter will consistently return to the ball and make quality contact. It will probably feel a bit like you are impersonating Raymond Floyd putting.
And I found that even when I mis-hit putts by a good amount, the speed was generally pretty good. If I missed it badly off the heel, it would usually miss left. Miss it off the toe and it would miss right. Very different from the standard putters I’ve used.
In general, I found that I putt very well with the YAR putter, particularly on putts inside 15 feet. Longer putts are not that big of a deal either. If there’s a bit of a problem it’s on putts with a lot of break. But, I believe that is because those putts probably require more focus towards the direction of where the apex of the putt is than the hole as I usually hit those big breaking putts too hard.
For now, I fully plan to keep the YAR putter in my bag. I think the YAR putter is a good putter for those people who have more issues related to their putting stroke rather than their aim. I think the Edel putters are more for those that have more aiming issues than stroke issues or if their poor aim causes them to make big compensations in their putting stroke.
One of the things I am working on for 2013 Pro Golf Synopsis is to look at wind conditions and its effect on performance. I am looking for any suggestions or information with regards to wind and understanding the patterns and effects of wind. Below is some of my initial observations of the data I've collected and anybody who has suggestions or ideas can help as well. Either comment here or send me an e-mail at ProGolfSynopsis@yahoo.com
First, I will give an overview of how the data is being recorded.
A. Using the Adjusted Scoring Average Formula
This formula subtracts the average score for the round from par. Then that difference is added to the golfer's score.
For example, if a golfer shoots 66 on a par-72 and the average score was a 74.5 for the day, the golfer's score would be adjusted to 63.5.
(72-74.5 = -2.5 66 + (-2.5) = 63.5)
B. Splitting the difference between Average Wind Speed and Max Wind Speed to come up with a 'wind speed.'
There are 3 measurements when it comes to wind data. Average Wind Speed, Mas Wind Speed and Wind Gust. Wind Gust is faster than Max Wind Speed. However, it is a brief time of when wind speed increases. IIRC, the time is less than 30 seconds. That is partially why I don't include wind gust data. The other reason is that the correlation between the effect of wind gust on performance and wind speed and performance is roughly the same.
C. I am looking at the difference in rankings in Adjusted Scoring Average
I think if you were to just look at the player's ranking in lighter wind speeds vs. heavier wind speeds, it does not tell us much.
If a golfer ranks 3rd in *overall* Adjusted Scoring Average, then they are likely to rank well in Adjusted Scoring Average regardless of the wind speed.
I'm more curious about the players who see the biggest drops and biggest improvements when the wind speed changes; then look at to what they do that makes them more or less effective when the wind picks up.
D. For some of the sake of posterity, I have split the scoring data into 1 mph wind speed increments
This will allow me to split the data any way I deem fit.
***
I have only gone thru halfway of the 2012 season. The idea is to do the 2012 season first, see what the data suggests and then go into the 2013 season. If something jives between the 2012 and 2013 data, we start to see a trend. I hope that this will eventually evolve to something where we can discover enough 'truths' and 'trends' that it can be applied to the average amateur's game as well.
Here is what I've discovered so far (again, not concrete until I compile more data).
1. Wind speeds usually pick up in the afternoon.
Looking at the data which usually shows the recorded wind speeds throughout the day we see that the wind speeds are usually much slower in the morning than in the afternoon. The winds usually pick up around 1pm each day. However, depending on storm patterns that can completely change things.
2. Wind speeds range from 5 to 25 mph with 9-12 mph winds being the most frequent.
3. The more the wind blows the more difficult the course gets. However, the actual difficulty of the course determines what the average score will be with relation to par.
Hard courses are going to be hard regardless if the wind is barely blowing at 5 mph or 25 mph. Easy courses will be easy regardless if the wind is blowing at 5 mph or 25 mph. The courses out in Palm Springs are some of the easiest on Tour. But as the wind picks up they become less easy. Usually we see the scores get worse as the wind picks up in 5 mph increments. So an easy course at 6 mph wind speeds becomes a little less easy at 11 mph wind speeds and less easy at 16 mph wind speeds. The actual difficulty of the course matters the most. But when you're playing in a tournament, the scores will increase as the wind picks up.
4. The players who improve most in the wind appear to have a downward attack angle with the driver. The players who regress the most when the wind picks up tend to have an upward attack angle.
I do not have attack angle data. However, the Tour provides club head speed, spin rate, max height and launch angle data for each Tour player. When looking at this data we start to see that the players who improve the most in windier conditions have radar metrics that indicate that they are hitting down with the driver. In particular, the players that improve in the wind are generating a lot more spin with their driver than those who get worse. I tend to think spin would be a bad thing into the wind. But, I feel that the real issue is not so much the spin rate and is more about the attack angle. This is actually NOT an argument against hitting up with the driver because most rounds of golf on Tour take place when the wind speed is at 12 mph or less. But once you get to wind speeds of more than 13 mph, hitting up with the driver appears to become more problematic.
5. The players who improve most in the wind tend to be better with the wedges
Where I have seen the biggest statistical improvement between the players who improve the most versus the players that regress the most is from the Birdie Zone as well as shots from 125-150 yards. My initial thoughts on this is that it may jive with the attack angle with the driver since we have seen a correlation between attack angles with the driver and Birdie Zone play (golfers with more downward attack angles tend to hit the wedges better). However, there is a small correlation between Short Game play (shots from 20 yards and in from off the green) and improved players in the wind.
I think the Birdie Zone play could also be chalked up to par-5's becoming more difficult to hit in 2 shots and requiring the golfer to hit full wedge shots into those greens. And when the wind picks up the GIR % goes down, so one needs to be good around the green so they can save par.
6. The players who regress the most when it gets windier tend to be more aggressive off the tee.
7. There is some data that suggests that where the golfer grew up playing appears to influence their ability to play in windier conditions.
Here's what I have so far as the players that improved the most in windy conditions for the first half of 2012:
MOST IMPROVED
1. Charl Schwartzel
2. Tom Gillis
3. Jason Kokrak
4. Tommy Gainey
5. Brian Harman
6. John Merrick
7. Jonas Blixt
8. Boo Weekley
9. Angel Cabrera
10. J.B. Holmes
11. Y.E. Yang
12. J.J. Henry
13. Chris Kirk
14. Steve Stricker
15. Trevor Immelman
16. David Mathis
17. Gavin Coles
18. Kris Blanks
19. Chad Campbell
20. Mathew Goggin
21. Graeme McDowell
22. Danny Lee
23. John Mallinger
24. Graham Delaet
25. Stuart Appleby
26. Matt Jones
27. Daniel Summerhays
28. Chris Stroud
29. Vaughn Taylor
30. Rocco Mediate
31. Billy Mayfair
LARGEST REGRESSION
1. John Daly
2. Ian Poulter
3. Bryce Molder
4. Patrick Sheehan
5. Brandt Snedeker
6. Ben Crane
7. Sergio Garcia
8. Hunter Haas
9. Martin Flores
10. Robert Allenby
11. Bud Cauley
12. Geoff Ogilvy
13. Louis Oosthuizen
14. Dustin Johnson
15. Jeff Overton
16. Rod Pampling
17. Ben Curtis
18. Bill Haas
19. Kevin Streelman
20. Hunter Mahan
21. Bubba Watson
22. Seung-yul Noh
23. Robert Garrigus
24. Keegan Bradley
25. Webb Simpson
26. Scott Piercy
27. Cameron Beckman
28. Martin Laird
29. Kyle Stanley
30. Derek Lamely
31. Mark Wilson
