Data on Golf Improvement?

General Discussion
#1

Someone on this Forum recommended Tom Coyne’s Paper Tiger. Just read it. Very good. Thank you, whoever that was.

Paper Tiger: A year of “Nothing but golf” (coaching, fitness, practice, competition, fitted Mizunos) takes Tom from 9.4 to 0.4 index.

The “Dan Plan” book goes from non-golfer to 2.9 index, practicing every day, for a few years. His goal is to get to 10,000 hours of practice and his back gives out ~6,000.

Is there any data the Forum knows about (rather than stories), linking X amount of golfer effort to Y amount of improvement? Someone who has dispassionately studied something like: “What happens when someone gets 10-20 hours of lessons, and does 80 hours of practice, over the course of a summer”…something like that?

Absent that, does GHIN or anyone publish data on how often players actually improve, and how much? I.e., my wild guess is that 80% of handicaps, once established with 10 rounds, stay within 2 shots over 5 years. The nerd in me would just love to learn about that.

4 Likes
Ball Striking Quest - Papageorgio Winter Program
#2

I think this is an interesting question, but I’m not sure there is going to be enough data to really draw any good conclusions and my bet would be the answer is: it depends on the person and it depends on the practice.

I’ve mentioned elsewhere my love of the podcast chasing scratch… it’s what brought me here through @Adamyounggolf . The basic premise is 2 guys trying to get from 13 handicaps to scratch… they are on season 3 and have announced season 4. As a spoiler, the lowest they get is around 3.

They do some things really well… they talk to smart people (Adam and mike are both here and know what they are talking about) and at least try to follow the advice given…

They also do some things that drive me crazy… at one point one of them had like an 8 degree inside path and didn’t realize it… they have been given some amazing tools but sometimes they seem to be trying to hammer nails with screwdrivers…

My point is: dedicating time and energy to getting better is only part of the equation… you have to be working on the right stuff and working a specific plan that works for you… Adam talks about getting better at hitting your intended target line and missing more putts because you aren’t reading the green correctly… in other words, improving one thing doesn’t necessarily net a lower score.

The other side of this, for me personally, is I have the time I have for golf… I need to figure out what maximizes my benefits, especially as I’m currently injured.

I think the best thing to do is find a good golf coach and set goals with them… then start chasing the goals and adjust the plan as needed… my quest for 120 mph club head speed is on hold due to back injury, so I’m currently working on putting and chipping as they don’t require a full turn.

Honestly, figuring out the best strategy for your game doesn’t require time as much as it requires commitment…

I definitely want to see more data! I’m just not sure how applicable it will be.

2 Likes
#3

If this data existed, I think I would have come across it by now.

Either way, even if it did, I’m not sure how valuable it would be. There are so many variables, I’m not even sure that the most “scientific” study of golf improvement would yield ironclad results.

I really believe we’re all on our own unique journey in this game. I try to point all of you in the right direction to make your path a little more efficient, but I think a lot of getting better at golf is about experimentation and self discovery.

I’ve put my 10,000 hours in at this point (probably more), and while I consider myself a pretty good golfer I am MILES away from being able to play professionally, and I think that concept has mostly been debunked at this point. I’m not sure time/effort is necessarily the best indicator of success. It’s how efficient you are. Are you taking lessons? Are you being analytical about each part of the game, and adjusting? Or just going through the motions?

5 Likes
#4

Sorry to be a sceptic but I’m firmly in the natural talent corner.

I agree, if you practice relentlessly (these guys had financial support to do so) you can lower your handicap significantly.

That being said, it only gets you so far! There must always be some form of unlying natural ability.

For example, we can all kick a soccer ball (football for the purists :wink:) and you can be trained to be more accurate but you can’t teach the instinct…could literally apply any sport to this.

If you have both, there is potential to make it, if you lack one I’m afraid there will be a plateau and it is a matter of when you realise and accept this.

Hopefully you won’t see this as major negativity but more realism and an ability to help manage your expectations.

Have a good day all.

#5

If we’re looking at this through the lens of becoming an “elite performer” then yes, natural talent has to be taken into consideration.

But I think most are here to understand how to get better at this game as a recreational player. Ben Hogan said he believed that all golfers have the ability to shoot in the 70s, and for the most part, I do agree with him.

For almost everyone, getting better at this game has to be balanced with the rest of the commitments in your life, and that’s where things get tricky. I’m not sure the experiments with golfers who have unlimited time/resources to get better are all that helpful to the rest of us because it’s just not realistic. They might have some entertainment value though.

4 Likes
#6

The rest of my life keeps getting in the way! Baby needs new shoes!

1 Like
#7

I don’t see this as a negative, but I don’t necessarily agree.

I definitely think talent is an important base that can be built off of, but I’m not sure the level of talent needed is necessarily all that high…

I look at myself as an example… I’ve always had clubhead speed and been a fairly good ball striker. My putting is a weak spot, but the rest of my game could have been honed to an elite level…

I also had access to good facilities and supportive parents… I’m not saying I have the talent to have gone pro, but I often wonder how much better I could have been had I actually consciously practiced and approached the game in a more methodical fashion.

I got down to a four in one summer at age 22 simply by playing golf every day… I often wonder where I would have been if I had done that at age 14.

I’m not particularly unique in terms of talent… I have good hand eye coordination and an ability to repeat motions fairly well. What I lacked was discipline.

#8

I am skeptical of there being a clean correlation on the type of data you are looking for.

What I do think is true though, is that the majority of golfers are playing to 50-60% of their potential. It is a really difficult game, and “short term” changes in the long game are 3-6 months of hard work (that’s my experience).

Could most people drop their handicaps into the single digits from a physical standpoint? Probably a lot of folks.

Do most people have the discipline to rigorously develop skills and slowly stack those skills on top of each other? No, most people want to go out and play better TODAY. Unfortunately that’s just not how it works.

#9

It would be nice if there were research to back up some of the practice routines.

1 Like
#10

Thanks for all the responses - Craigers (hope your back gets better), Jon

Food for thoughts: I once did a randomized control trial on K-12 teacher coaching. We recruited 60 New Orleans math and English teachers. Half were randomly selected to get 1:1 coaching during the school year. Half didn’t. Got an economist (now at Brown University) to follow them and measure the effect.

It’d be great to a similar RCT in golf!

Pick some reasonable time commitment. For example, recruit 100 golfers willing to a) Take 20 lessons over 20 weeks, b) Commit to 4 hours of practice per week, doing what their coach tells them. While 10,000 hours is out of reach for most of us, 100 hours is in reach for some. Randomly choose 50 golfers to get the “treatment.” Measure changes to their golf swing (via Trackman) and to their scoring (via handicap).

I think Jon has it nailed: “Getting better at this game has to be balanced with the rest of the commitments in your life, and that’s where things get tricky.”

That’s why I’m surprised that the golf instruction field has not more clearly measured this.

If people knew the rough parameters of what result to expect - yes every person is different, that’s what RCTs are for - from some arbitrary X lessons and Y diligent practice, perhaps more would do it!

1 Like
#11

That is interesting. The golfers would certainly show improvement if you had 100% compliance.

Relating this to golf, the current reality is more like surveying a larger group of teachers and asking them whether they were investing resources into coaching and trying to discern whether they showed improvement. My assumption is a lot of teachers would fib about how hard they were working. That’s my take on what I hear out of most golfers in different forums. The missing ingredient is usually compliance and focused practice.

You took a lot of the variables out of the equation and had an implementation intent set up for your participants. Sounds like a great program!

#12

I agree with @papageorgio if you had true compliance from the golfers, and the teachers were “pretty good at what they do” I’d be shocked if most players didn’t get better

The study would be interesting, but as much as I know about the golf industry, I wouldn’t hold your breath on it happening :rofl:

#13

Yes - lots of probs in self-reported data. A bigger problem is that it’s really hard to practice the act of teaching.

What’s the equivalent of the driving range or even tools like Perfect Putter?

Most teachers do the golf equivalent of playing 180 rounds a year (actually teaching). And literally zero practice. For sure teachers prep, grade papers, all sorts of other stuff beyond the classroom. But not practice. Not trying their lessons out, say, in front of a mirror or better yet, with 2 kids before they deliver the lesson to 20. It’s just not a norm in the profession.

2 Likes
#14

Really cool perspective. Thanks for sharing. Going to chew on that.

I considered a masters program in ed psychology. Life sort of got in the way. Maybe one day.

2 Likes
#15

@jon I was sorted of trying to get to your point on professionals vs recreational and how these blogs or videos are misleading as it isn’t true for the everyday golfer.

I’m chasing example, I went from 15 to 8 in a year when I could play and practice during work hours on the works course; move to states with a young family and the balance is no longer there.

Ill likely Hoover around 9 for some time now.

1 Like
#16

A big problem for most of us is time. It’s hard for me to find the time (and money) to play more than once a week and maybe hit a few balls at the range. With the COVID situation I was actually to play/practice significantly more and I played the best golf of my life. Don’t think that’s a coincidence.

Nevertheless, I think the biggest thing holding golfers back from reaching their potential is time.

2 Likes
#17

@greenOak agreed…I think you can make improvements (significant improvements) with just about any swing - given enough time to make it work. I guess most of us are searching for the balance of time and technique/data to help maximize the sparse time we have. Very good point you’ve made.

#18

Has there been any research done on whether the average golfer improves the most through playing or by practicing (with or without a coach)?

1 Like
#19

Good question. I haven’t been able to find such research. I’d love to see such a test.

What might it look like? To spitball:

a. Gather a bunch of golfers with handicaps b/w 9 and 19, willing to be assigned to one or the other. For research!

b. The “play” group agrees to get in 25 rounds over 4 months, and the “practice group” agrees to 100 hours in the same period.

Then re-assess their new handicaps with a few more rounds.

I can think of dozens of good experiments like this.

Golf seemingly lends itself so well to empirical experimentation (quality of the data, plenty of data nerds, individual actors). Different from other sports. So I’m surprised to see so little of it.

Jon alludes to “What I know about the golf industry.” Not sure what he means. Perhaps he’s learned that the business side doesn’t value experiments?

#20

There’s a few reasons why (probably)

  • time and cost
  • it’s not marketable - the industry wants to sell you products and quick fixes
  • lack of knowledge on how to properly conduct an experiment

I also think it would be incredibly hard to get any meaningful results. Is the sample size really big enough? There are some many variables on why golfers are at different levels, and what they need to actually get better (for some it might be swing help, for others it could be more mental/strategic).

I agree with you that it would be interesting, I just wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen!