Is Pelz Right? What does It Mean If He Is?

[HDPM]

Something I reread the other day got me thinking. If Dave Pelz is correct that tour players have a margin of error on their full shots of around 7%, what does it mean for luck playing a much bigger role in determining a winner of a tournament? What does it mean for all the added length now? For these purposes, let's look at an extreme set up, a US Open set up playing 7400 or more yards with very narrow fairways. On a 300 yard drive, if Pelz is correct, a good tour quality ball striker can expect to be 21 yards from the target. But if a good player can only expect to be within 21 yards of a target and fairway is less than 28 yards wide, is it a meaningful test or a random one? Same thing if a player dials back to hit it 280, in that event he can expect to be 19.6 yards from the target. A 28-30 yard wide fairway on a 270 yard drive as the guys in the '70's faced looks more generous I think. I think some of the fairways are the same as then, but I am not sure how much they are narrowing or where.

Also, if Pelz's position is correct that the 7% error is pretty steady through the bag of a tour pro, it has implications as far as the difficulty provided by adding length doesn't it? Courses have been lengthened obviously, in some cases holes have been lengthened because of an effort to get modern players hitting a similar club for the approach to the ones used in prior eras. In other words if a hole was driver 6 iron for Hogan and driver 7 iron Nicklaus, people want to make it driver 7 iron or 8 iron for a modern pro, rather than driver gap wedge. OK, so lets say after the 300 yard drive the pro now has a 180 yard shot instead of a 160 yard shot. If pelz is correct that the margin was steady through the bag of pros then, isn't a 180 yard shot tougher even though the ball goes longer? If he is correct isn't it true that Tiger would rather face a 160 yard shot with a shorter ball because he could expect to hit it about 4.5 feet closer to the hole? Should par 3's be left alone and longer holes lengthened some to get modern players closer to old landing zones?

If Pelz is right shouldn't we applaud the pros now rather than saying the old equipment made it so the players then were somehow better than those today?

I think the equipment needs to be dialed back, but not simply to provide a different test to the top miniscule percentage of golfers who play in the biggest tournaments. There are other factors that play into it like time and expense of playing and the expense of building courses.

Anyway, I think a lot of what the USGA does in setting up a course is kind of dumb, but looking at what pelz said got me thinking about it in a different way. If a 200 yard shot is tougher than a 150 yard shot regardless of the number stamped on the bottom of the implement used to hit it, shouldn't we allow pros to shoot lower scores than in past years at reasonable set ups, knowing skill played a role and not simply the balls and clubs? I also wonder if pelz's numbers are about the same now as then, I am not sure exactly when he compiled his stats or if he keeps them up to date. I also can't verify his numbers. Along these lines, if Shotlink data were available it could be used to determine exactly how accurately the pros hit it today. AFAIK the public doesn't get much shotlink data, I dunno how the Tour doles it out or uses it or who has access to what.

[Doug Funnie II]

I don't know David Pelz' qualifications as a stastician, but I think the 7% margin of error is not circular around a pro's target, and to what level of confidence is that 7% computed?

"shouldn't we applaud the pros now rather than saying the old equipment made it so the players then were somehow better than those today"

I was unaware that there was a significant contingent of people who believed this, but to me it makes no sense. What possible reason could there be which explains why players in the past were better? Modern players work harder, have a better understanding of the swing, and have better fitness. Prizes are bigger so inevitably more people develop their skills, and the overall level of play improves.

I disagree that the equipment needs to be dialed back. Hitting the ball far is sexy, and really in sports its what the fans want that dictate where the sport goes. All other modern sports have undergone some sort of evolution, whether it was instant replay, 3 point lines, rule changes, etc. I like where golf is going and I think the direction its headed it pretty much inevitable anyways, so why fight it?

[HDPM]

Pelz indicated that a pro's margin of error was not circular. On full shots the overall pattern was to miss to either side and on shots under 100 yards or so to miss short and long. Pelz compiled a bunch of stats by hand in the old days, and indicates he can tell a lot about a player's game after 40 rounds. I don't know how good his data are.

I run across things where there is an implication that players from bygone eras were better. I don't buy it either. And as I said I long for the old days in some respects.

Hitting the ball longer has led to dull golf. Some fans like it, but distance is all relative. And if distance is so great, why aren't ratings up? Where do you think golf is heading?

[JTrout]

I went to Pelz' short game school back in the early 90's.

Working off memory, some recollections:
Pro's PEI (percent error index) was 8-10% on full shots. (Equipment, as well as better players, may explain that it's now 7%)

The distance control is far superior to the line on full shots.
Something like 3yds off on distance from 150.

Trevino was far and away the best that Pelz had kept stats on.
I remember him saying his PEI was 5%.

And that pros PEI shot through the roof when they hit less-than full shots. Half wedge PEI are tight in direction, but awful in distance.
(Thus his advising having 13 wedges in the bag.)

I think these numbers, 7% or whatever, represent typical pro on typical day. Guys on top of their ball-striking on a given week may do much better.

Two things that stick with me from that school:
The importance of acceleration on all chips, pitches, putts.
How much time Pelz spent on the tempo of your putting.

[HDPM]

He had a range then. I used 7% because that was ballpark then and what he used as the ballpark figure. Trevino was close to 5% as you say. The range of ball striking went from the 5% to about 9 or 10%. He then went on to analyze scoring and point out why the best ball strikers were not always the best scorers. Anyway, I think if correct his PEI sheds some light on course set ups and may mean they shouldn't be toughened up as much as some think.

[JTrout]

I agree that some of the things the USGA does to a golf course makes my stomach turn.

The thing I hate the most, though, is that every par 4 today is played with a Driver and a wedge.
Very little 3-7 iron shots for the top players.
The ball goes forever, and the fairways are runways.
The US Open round where Goosen shot 80 or so on Sunday (after leading), I think he has SW or W into every hole. Sw from fairway bounding over the back of the green isn't my idea of a major test.

What is unfair to some, however, is doable for others.

I remember playing to a couple of pins that were in places I thought were sucker pins... Guys on the minis would have been howling about these pins being "tricked up".
In fact they were sucker pins for me. The club I had to hit to them would not hold the green if I shot at the pin.
I played away from them, struggled for par, and patted myself on the back for good course management.
Then I watched Duval and Love stuff it on those same holes [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
Sometimes tough is good, as it identifies the best from the rest.
But there is a fine line between tough and "tricked up".

[HDPM]

Yeah, but take the example of the hole they will play at the US Open this year, a 288 yard par 3. I don't care who you are, you aren't hitting a gap wedge. I know back in the day par 3's might require a brassie, but does that mean we have to force players to take drivers and 3 woods now? Compare to say a 230 yard par 3. Tough, right? If the PEI is really 7% regardless of club, does it matter much if Tiger hits a 4 iron where Jack hit a 1-iron? if both hit it to 16 yards away from the hole on average, is the course really easier because Tiger hits 4 iron? Perhaps slightly given it might be easier to hold close. So adding some length makes sense because of the ball, but perhaps things are being overdone. Driver wedge probably isn't right, but how much does it matter if Sarazen hit 4 wood, Nicklaus a 1-iron, and Tiger a 4 iron. And if you really go back, to get pros hitting the same club as Vardon and Jones, you have to have par 4s that are unbelievably long. How do you make Tiger hit a 3 wood to a par 4? You don't, and it doesn't necessarily mean the game is so easy if the PEI idea is correct. because a 550 yard hole may be tougher than a 450 yard one, regardless of the particular 2 clubs used to get there. Forget par and the number stamped on the clubs for a minute, just look at challenge and stroke average.

[JTrout]

Yes, irons with numbers on the bottom are still used on par3's, and par 5's on many courses (many par 5's have become yesterday's par 4's)

But the par 4's have suffered the most with the better equipment.

Of the 10 par 4's on a course, I'd like
one or two driveable
3 or 4 wedges
2 or 3 short/mid iron
2 or 3 mid/long iron


Cross bunkering, sharp doglegs, distance,and hazards are the ways to achieve some diversity.


I don't have a problem with a 288 yard hole. As you say, take away the par on the hole. (I'd call that a par 3.5 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]) If the hole rewards quality shots, penalizes poor ones, provides more than one way to play it successfully, then I think it is a good hole.
If it is 288 yds. of hazard and rough, to a tiny green, then I'd call it a bad hole.

[HDPM]

More than one way to play a hole? You must not be with the USGA. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[LimitGod]

Don't listen to Pelz on the short game.

If you truly want to improve your short game you should listen to Stan Utley. His methods are much more natural.