Shot Scope Case Study #2: George’s Poor Greenside Play
Labs

Shot Scope Case Study #2: George’s Poor Greenside Play

Shot Scope Case Study #2: George’s Poor Greenside Play

George is a long-time user of both Shot Scope V1 and now V2. We met George when one of our team members happened to play with George at an event last month. George mentioned his scoring and handicap had climbed from 4 to 6 over the past year and that he couldn’t pinpoint the cause. George hadn’t made any significant swing changes although he did change his wedge set-up.

In 2017, Shot Scope identified poor gapping with his PW, 49°, and 56° wedges. This season, George altered his setup to use a PW, 50°, 54°, and 58°. The Shot Scope team decided to work with George on a case study and see if we could identify a cause for his increased handicap.

George’s Stats

George’s game overview shows he is now a 6 handicap, and his general game is in a good state. George mentioned that he plays 4/5 times a week (he is retired) at different courses and in competitions. He doesn’t hit the ball too far, but with 64% fairway success he is accurate with the Driver. With no obvious red flags, the team decided to look at George’s wedges, since that is the only change he has made.

Avg. Wedge Distances

As you can see from the Shot Scope V2 Data, George’s gapping has improved with the new wedge set-up. When he added the extra club, George removed his 4-iron, which he hardly used since he carries a 23° Hybrid. This was definitely the correct decision for George, and it’s great to see the difference between his 2017 and 2018 distances.

Short Game Performance

When looking into George’s short-game performance data, we found something intriguing. George uses a lot of clubs around the green, playing predominantly at a links course there should be a lot of chip and runs. He has a poor proximity to hole average with his 50°, 54°, 58°, 50°, and 23° hybrid. Those clubs account for 64% of his greenside shots. It’s possible there could be a bias towards using the new wedges at an increased frequency, and the inaccuracy could boil down to a lack of practice with the new lofts. There are obvious reasons to use high-lofted wedges around the greens; e.g., out of bunkers or other situations where obstacles must be carried, but on true links courses like the ones George plays, he could play more chip and runs. There is little reason to use the hybrid as the data suggests that George is not very good with this shot.

Short Game Potential

We sent George an example of what his short game could look like if he decided to use specific clubs for short game shots, and how without changing technique, he could improve his scoring. We are aware that there will still be an occasional need to use high-lofted clubs around the green, but most golfers can benefit from lofting down around the green.

Not only could George improve his average proximity to the hole by 2.3 feet, but he could also potentially get up and down 11.5% more often.

Showing George the potential performance of his short game should encourage him to loft down around the greens and ultimately lower his handicap. George may not be able to resist using the higher lofted clubs around the green, but that is the goal.

Recommendation

George should attempt to use his putter, PW, 9i, and 8i more around the greens and not to use the H23 or 50 at all. George should monitor his stats to see if can attain the potential usages per club and maintain the up and down ratios.

GET YOUR SHOT SCOPE GAME EVALUATION

Would you like to take part in a Shot Scope Case Study? If you are a Shot Scope user with over 15 rounds in your account, enter your details below – including handicap, location, and the area of the game you think requires work. Shot Scope will select different users and compile reports.

For You

For You

Golf Shafts
Apr 14, 2024
Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
News
Apr 14, 2024
A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
Drivers
Apr 13, 2024
Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

Our mission is #ConsumerFirst. We are here to help educate and empower golfers. We want you to get the most out of your money, time and performance. That means providing you with equipment reviews you can trust, as well as honest reporting on the latest issues affecting the game today. #PowerToThePlayer

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

Driver Ping G30 Hybrids PXG 0317
3/4 IRON PXG 0311XF 5-GW Srixon Z 565
SW PXG 0317 LW PXG 0311
Putter EVNROLL  
MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy

MyGolfSpy





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      Ernest Poirier

      6 years ago

      I question how the USAGE was calculated in the “Potential” area. Sure, I see that the numbers add up to 100%, but how does his Putter use go from 22% to 30%, while his 58* (or whatever degree his wedge is, since it’s different in 2 spots) drops from 31% to 16%.

      I have played nearly 50 rounds this season, and I use ShotScope. I like numbers/stats, but I haven’t seen anything that jumps out at me that would help me in improving my 8.4 Handicap “Index”.

      Reply

      Brad

      6 years ago

      My own analysis of this data indicates that there are some anomolies with all of George’s new specialist wedges, but particularly the 50° wedge. I would suggest the possibility that these new wedges are not fit correctly with the right bounce or lie angle. There’s also no real reason why a 50° wedge should perform that much more poorly than a PW, 9i or 8i around the greens.

      Also, I can’t understand the statement that George’s gapping is better now with the extra wedge (4) than it was previously with only 3 wedges. Before, George only had an 18 yard gap between his PW and his gap wedge. Now, it is a 23 yard gap. That’s a big gap between clubs, especially wedges. Based on this data, I would like to see George try a 48°, 52° and 56° wedge setup to reduce the gap between his PW and gap wedge. George clearly also has some trouble with the higher lofted 58° and for many golfers a 56° is the highest loft they need. Looks like that might be the case here as well.

      p.s. In you “avg wedge distances” chart, you show the incorrect lofts for George’s wedges for 2018. Based on the rest of the data, they should read 50°, 54° and 58° not 49°, 56°, 58°.

      Reply

      DaveMac

      6 years ago

      You simply can’t compare last year’s short game and this year’s short game in this manner.

      This year’s playing conditions are completely different (hardpan) and so much much more difficult compared to last year. You will all have seen Carnoustie, all our courses in Scotland have been burnt to a frizzle this year. A shot over a bunker was easy last year, this year a good shot this year might be 15 ft away, might even be impossible.

      I guess it is reasonable to assume the shots played with less loft didn’t require the carrying of an obstacle, thus were easier to execute, rather than simply being more proficient with lower lofted short game shots over higher lofted short game shots

      Raw data doesn’t always provide the right answer.

      Reply

      TheKiltedGolfer

      6 years ago

      You may want to verify your 2018 Wedge Avg Distances. I think you have them noted incorrectly. Should be?
      PW, 50°, 54°, and 58°

      Reply

      Jon

      6 years ago

      There are a few things with Shot Scope that could be improved (although I believe it is superior to Arccos 360 and Game Golf). Average distances include uphill and downhill shots irrespective of the slopes so there’s a wide variation in distances within the mix.

      Could there not be an elevation element?

      The online maps within the app are sometimes difficult to use due to shadows – you can’t tell whether you’re on the fairway or not.

      The value of the online data would be greater if, instead of the current interface, we could choose to explore a list of options.

      Finally, I cannot see how I can use my data to improve my game. Because of elevation variations, the app suggests that I have four clubs within 20 yards of each other. I also cannot see how I can find my average proximity for short game shots as used to help the golfer in this case study. That’s a bit odd and something of an oversight surely.

      To be clear, I love my ShotScope. I’ve tried the other two and I believe this is a better system because of the fact that, unlike Game Golf, you don’t have to remember to tap your belt, and because, unlike Arccos, the sensors are tiny and unobtrusive and unlike Arccos 360, it has accuracy due to the pin position being specified on the round. But it could be even better. Many thanks.

      The watch is too big: surely a better shape could be developed and can it have a normal strap rather than the upside down clunky one it currently uses.

      Reply

      KM

      6 years ago

      What ever happened to choking down on a PW?

      Reply

      Dr Tee

      6 years ago

      I don’t think you need electronics or scopes to have a great short game. I disagree with the concept that you should use a lot of different clubs to “keep the ball down”. My short game has always kicked butt, because as mentioned in one of the above replies CONSISTENCY IS the name of the game. Instead of monkeying around with a lot of different clubs, I have almost exclusively use 54 and 58 DEGREE wedges around the green and in greenside bunkers, choice dictated by lie, distance to hole, and local green contours (uphill, downhill, shortsided, plenty of green etc…) and, I know exactly where the ball is going to end up. Most importantly, I took a Pelz short game school, learned a lot of cool stuff, and calibrated my yardages for different swings . Finally, you have to know how to EXECUTE. No one shot or swing will do it all. And…I agree, the hybrid around the green is worthless (just because Hamilton did it at the British doesn’t mean it’s good for everyone), unless you’re up against the transition from short collar to long fringe. Amen, and end of sermon.

      Reply

      John Mackessack

      6 years ago

      I couldn’t agree more. I’ve always been a 2 club wonder around the greens, 52 & 56. If George is a 6 hcp, he must have the dexterity to keep it simple and not rely purely on ‘gapping’, gapping is really only relevant if you hit the ball very consistently. Plus on a links course (which if in the US, it’s really not), carry distances onto greens are largely pointless, unless you’re producing super-human spin levels.

      Reply

      Darren Gee

      6 years ago

      I’d like an interpretation of my data please, I’ve improved from 19 to 16 (since buying Shotscope V2 a cpl of months ago, coincidence?) I’m loving the data.
      I play at Moray in the north of Scotland, and think my approach irons, and my driver, but with the poor stats I’m leaving my driver in the bag more often and seeing the benefit. I’ve just shared the info with my Pro and we are hoping to use the data to construct a program around.

      Reply

      Brad Smith

      6 years ago

      I’m trying to make sense of the proximity vs % made data. Even the pro’s putting made % from the proximity to hole distance is much less than what is shown. Therefore, the only explanation is that on most shots, he is chipping or pitching much closer than the “average” proximity distance, but every 3rd of 4th shot, he totally flubs it. This inconsistent chipping makes sense for his actual data, but shouldn’t his potential data for proximity and % make be closer to regular putting performance %’s?

      Reply

      ramon

      6 years ago

      Best info for a 18/10 handic

      Reply

      Regis

      6 years ago

      Hard to believe that a regular golfer with a single digit handicap needed an “analysis” to tell him why his handicap went up 50%. If a microanalysis works that’s great. Most golfers I know who play this often know their deficiency as soon as it creeps into their game

      Reply

      Large chris

      6 years ago

      I’m still a bit sceptical, I used gamegolf a fair bit and now use shotscope and yes it’s clever but…. unless you are playing very straightforward green complexes, I believe most competent golfers will look at the lie first and decide on a reasonable club. My stats on my gap wedge chipping for example almost certainly are similar to my 8 iron, except I know I’m taking the gap wedge from trickier spots, worse lies, from below the green etc.

      On the broader stats point, particularly if you play your home course a lot, there is a lot of bias built in on all the figures, due to the prevailing wind, normal shot shape required on a hole, again elevation changes etc etc. I know it’s been said before, but if you’ve got a severely downhill 150 yard par 3, your 9 iron (for example) stats are going to be very slanted.

      I believe a technical solution is conceivable in version 3:

      1) The software should use open source real-time weather and elevation data to produce ‘normalised’ results for all shots
      2) use the motion sensing in the wristband in a more sophisticated way, similar to the Zepp swing analyser, so that the software can make a more educated guess at what shot you were attempting (draw, fade, punch etc.)

      Reply

      shortside

      6 years ago

      I would suggest a few wedge lessons. To carry a 6 handicap and be 16+ ft away on average (that would indicate some big misses on a regular basis) with scoring clubs is quite remarkable. I’ve been great with the wedges and also lived through the yips with the chips some years ago. So definitely not casting stones here.

      Reply

      Divot

      6 years ago

      You have to be careful with this stat, the software that tracks the round assumes the location of the pin (Usually centre of green). If the golfer is not manually changing the location of the pin in the software (Can be done after completing each hole) than this statistic is not accurate.

      I use Arccos and you have to edit the pin locations to be accurate.

      Reply

      Jon

      6 years ago

      Actually Divot, you’ve put your finger on the big difference between Arccos and ShotScope: With ShotScope, the location of the pin is specified and accurate. This is done as you play not when you are on your computer. For this reason, ShotScope is more accurate than Arccos in many areas such as proximity to pin, putting, and short game.

      Fred Grafton

      6 years ago

      Have about 30 rounds in, and need help!
      Georgetown, Texas
      12.5 index

      Biggest issue is consistency.

      Reply

      Terry

      6 years ago

      You have only played 30 rounds and you are a 12.5? That’s incredible. Most people need about a year to get to that level.

      Reply

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Golf Shafts
    Apr 14, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
    News
    Apr 14, 2024
    A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
    Drivers
    Apr 13, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.