Patterns/Systems - Pros - Greens in Reg

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cwdlaw223

New
Is there any pattern/system (S&T, Morad, BMan, TGM, etc.) that has caused a touring pro to average more than 14 greens in regulation per year (assume at least 15 tournaments for the pro)?

If so, what pattern/system?

If not, what does that tell us about comparing patterns/systems and the science behind one vs. another?

P.S. I'm not a S&T, Morad and/or TGM guy. Although the S&T pattern is intriguing to me, I prefer BMan's patterns.
 
F

finncox

New
Although this isn't really an answer to your question, the NHA pattern (although this was his natural, not taught, pattern) has helped David Toms hit around 70% of fairways.
 
J

Jay845

New
Wow, greater than 77.7% for the year. I didn't look, but I think it is doubtful given the many factors that can effect GIR outside of strictly ball striking.

Perhaps the better question is:
Over the last 20 years, what pattern/system/teacher has produced the most top 10 finishers in GIR.

Not sure if that is a good question or not, but I think it might be better than the one posed in the original post (because I think it might identify which pattern/system/teaching style has the broadest application to the world's best ball strikers)
 
S

softconsult

New
I highly doubt that a pattern or system is responsible for tour success. In my opinion, athleticism is a more probable success factor.
 
Last edited:
C

cwdlaw223

New
softconsult said:
I highly doubt that a pattern or system is responsible to tour success. In my opinion, athleticism is a more probable success factor.
Click to expand...

Than why do so many people argue (not debate, I mean argue) over the type of pattern one uses and whether science proves one pattern is correct or not? Does everyone just want to feel that they're right even if in the end it comes to factors other than the science behind whether one pattern/swing is better than another?

I tend to agree with your position that athleticism dominates and I do want to know on a scientific basis which system/pattern is optimal.
 
S

suns11111

New
Want more GIRs, I would lean on higher ball flight playing a cut. 14 GIRS a round is not possible unless you play a wide open large green complex that is receptive.

GIR king past few years is John Senden.....just cant putt or chip! No science just stats.
JeffS
 
Last edited:
W

weese

New
Joe Durant would be up there too on the list. We should be studying his action more.

Course management and style of play are other factors for GIR.
 
C

cwdlaw223

New
Jay845 said:
Wow, greater than 77.7% for the year. I didn't look, but I think it is doubtful given the many factors that can effect GIR outside of strictly ball striking.

Perhaps the better question is:
Over the last 20 years, what pattern/system/teacher has produced the most top 10 finishers in GIR.

Not sure if that is a good question or not, but I think it might be better than the one posed in the original post (because I think it might identify which pattern/system/teaching style has the broadest application to the world's best ball strikers)
Click to expand...

Good point, however, I don't believe the average GIR stat has changed over the years. I understand there are different variables in the GIR stat, but at some point one has to use a real world statistic to compare the effectiveness of a pattern/system between another. If one pattern is scientifically superior to another then it should be superior in the average GIR and not just which players finish in the top ten.

My question was somewhat of a loaded question because where is the evidence that a scientific based swing pattern is better in the real world than a non-scientific based swing if people have success with both???

That's why I like BMan's patterns. He fits the patterns to the student. However, there is significant danger in focusing on "science" in proving that one pattern is better than another when in the end one can only go so far and other factors outside of science dictate success in hitting a golf ball.
 
W

weese

New
cwdlaw223 said:
Is there any pattern/system (S&T, Morad, BMan, TGM, etc.) that has caused a touring pro to average more than 14 greens in regulation per year (assume at least 15 tournaments for the pro)?

If so, what pattern/system?

If not, what does that tell us about comparing patterns/systems and the science behind one vs. another?

P.S. I'm not a S&T, Morad and/or TGM guy. Although the S&T pattern is intriguing to me, I prefer BMan's patterns.
Click to expand...

In history, I would have to say that the Jack Nicklaus and Byron Nelson patterns would be the kings of GIR.
 
S

softconsult

New
Sounds to me like a question with no answer.

"but at some point one has to use a real world statistic to compare the effectiveness of a pattern/system between another."

Not really possible. Define effective.

"If one pattern is scientifically superior to another then it should be superior in the average GIR and not just which players finish in the top ten."

The problem is that it is not scientifically provable that one method is superior. Isn't that obvious to you, watching all the different techniques on tour?

"My question was somewhat of a loaded question because where is the evidence that a scientific based swing pattern is better in the real world than a non-scientific based swing."

Where did you come up with this scientific based versu non-scientific based concept?
What are some examples of each?


"That's why I like BMan's patterns. He fits the patterns to the student."

I don't think that is correct. Based on what I have read and based on my one lesson with
Brian, he makes changes that might pull things from various patterns. Sure never mentioned anything to me about one pattern or another, but that's just one example.

However, there is significant danger in focusing on "science" in proving that one pattern is better than another when in the end one can only go so far and other factors outside of science dictate success in hitting a golf ball."

Seems like you are talking in circles.

Just my opinion.
 
E

ej20

New
John Senden is probably the best ball striker of the past decade.Joe Durant is great also but I give the nod to Senden as he has more power.John averages 117mph with driver.Durant averages around 112.

Here is Senden making an albatross with a 3 iron from 250 yards.Looks like an effortless 3 iron.We should be studying his swing more closely but he rarely gets discussed on forums.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PtpfVEg1kjc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PtpfVEg1kjc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
 
B

birly-shirly

New
There's at least one flaw that I can think of regarding the GiR stat. There's some evidence that what really separates out tour players is their ability to hit greens from long range - and the average tour pro isn't hitting into par 4s from long range.

Taking Tiger as an example, it's his ability to hit par 5s in 2 and putt for birdies and eagles that gives him a significant edge - but he gets no credit for this in his GiR stat.

I suppose then you could say that measuring GiR systematically undervalues the competitive or scoring advantage of long straight hitting.
 
E

ej20

New
Tiger has ruined his swing getting his hands deep on the backswing.He should be doing what he did early in his career and keep the club more in front of him like what Senden is doing.In my opinion this suits him better.Foley will not change that so I still see him spraying the driver next year.
 
C

cwdlaw223

New
softconsult said:
Sounds to me like a question with no answer.

"but at some point one has to use a real world statistic to compare the effectiveness of a pattern/system between another."

Not really possible. Define effective.

"If one pattern is scientifically superior to another then it should be superior in the average GIR and not just which players finish in the top ten."

The problem is that it is not scientifically provable that one method is superior. Isn't that obvious to you, watching all the different techniques on tour?

"My question was somewhat of a loaded question because where is the evidence that a scientific based swing pattern is better in the real world than a non-scientific based swing."

Where did you come up with this scientific based versu non-scientific based concept?
What are some examples of each?


"That's why I like BMan's patterns. He fits the patterns to the student."

I don't think that is correct. Based on what I have read and based on my one lesson with
Brian, he makes changes that might pull things from various patterns. Sure never mentioned anything to me about one pattern or another, but that's just one example.

However, there is significant danger in focusing on "science" in proving that one pattern is better than another when in the end one can only go so far and other factors outside of science dictate success in hitting a golf ball."

Seems like you are talking in circles.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...


This is like talking to my children and having to explain my existence every time. Or, like talking to a Monday morning quarterback who talks about all the errors in the game and no solutions. If you can't figure out the word effective you shouldn't be posting. Where did I come up with this "science" stuff? Right here! Just read the posts and all of the arguing over which pattern is based in science and which isn't. I presume that BMan wasn't using the word "pattern" in his video titled the "Soft Draw Pattern" according to your logic! Your response is illogical. Please don't hijack this thread and start your own if you feel there is a better way to evalute different patterns.
 
C

cwdlaw223

New
birly-shirly said:
There's at least one flaw that I can think of regarding the GiR stat. There's some evidence that what really separates out tour players is their ability to hit greens from long range - and the average tour pro isn't hitting into par 4s from long range.

Taking Tiger as an example, it's his ability to hit par 5s in 2 and putt for birdies and eagles that gives him a significant edge - but he gets no credit for this in his GiR stat.

I suppose then you could say that measuring GiR systematically undervalues the competitive or scoring advantage of long straight hitting.
Click to expand...

I recognize the weaknesses, however, it still is a good overall statistic to use when determining how well one plays over time. The average should even out the unique situations over time. I didn't want to use lowest scoring average because that brings into play variables other than the swing patterns. I want people to evaluate the effectiveness of the different patterns and if one clearly dominates another. If not, hopefully the heat in the debates will calm down.

The fact that somebody uses a word from Morad, TGM and/or S&T shouldn't cause massive email fights if in the end no one pattern is superior in the real world.
 
S

softconsult

New
Do you not realize that this is a forum!

You posted the your question. I think it's flawed, and I stated why I think that.

So what did you do? Attack the messenger. How brilliant.

Sorry, but when you post you should expect some answers that
may be in disagreement. I've given my comments.

Now let's just see whether anyone can answer your question.
I'm not holding my breath on this one!
 
B

birly-shirly

New
@cwdlaw223 - I understand - and I'm not trashing the idea of the question, just pointing out an area in which GiR maybe doesn't quite capture the scoring advantage of great ball-striking.

Personally though, I'm not sure that it makes sense to compare and rank systems. I think, where you can see a technique being used on tour, that should be evidence enough that the technique is sound.

Again speaking personally, I wouldn't place much emphasis on trying to identify the "best" technique. I'd be more interested in having the widest array of "good enough" techniques - from which you can choose something that you can make work. If you can identify the bits and pieces that make each "good enough" technique functional, then you're cookin' with gas.
 
F

footwedge

New member
cwdlaw223 said:
I recognize the weaknesses, however, it still is a good overall statistic to use when determining how well one plays over time. The average should even out the unique situations over time. I didn't want to use lowest scoring average because that brings into play variables other than the swing patterns. I want people to evaluate the effectiveness of the different patterns and if one clearly dominates another. If not, hopefully the heat in the debates will calm down.

The fact that somebody uses a word from Morad, TGM and/or S&T shouldn't cause massive email fights if in the end no one pattern is superior in the real world.
Click to expand...

How about the win statistic, who has won the most tourney's in the last 13 yrs. Can science or a crystal ball explain how Tiger with all his swing changes and his terrible swing that Haney cooked up won all those Majors and tournaments. What's Tiger's pattern? What's Philly Micks pattern? does it matter? What constitutes a pattern? Is it a style that suits a certain player but is death to another, or is it a one fits all or....?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top