Improving from 5-10 to Scratch (Statistically)

[iacas]

https://newsletter.loustagnergolf.com/p/the-race-to-scratch-where-gains-actually-come-from

 

One of (or the chief) data nerd at Arccos (Hutch, a great follow on X) did a little deep dive on 14 golfers who went from between a 5 to 10 index to a scratch or better. They had to log a good number of high quality rounds and they had to take longer than six months to do it (i.e. they didn't start by coming back from an injury or something with a high Arccos handicap before returning to form or something.

 

Now, 14 isn't a HUGE sample size, but not a ton of golfers go from a 7 to a scratch or better, and these stats are representative and align with what I see in my data set. It took these golfers 143 rounds and 26 months on average.

 

I recommend you read the article yourself, and subscribe to Lou's newsletter (even if only for the quick quiz at the start of each article), but the summary is unsurprisingly that these golfers got better by improving their approach play, followed by their driving. Short game and then putting brought up the rear.

 

Hutch found that the improvement over a 365-day (1-year) window was 2.5 strokes divided as follows:

 

• Approach: +1.02 strokes (40.8%)

• Drive: +0.81 strokes (32.4%)

• Short Game: +0.42 strokes (16.8%)

• Putting: +0.25 strokes (10.0%)

 

As I've said (and written), golfers can often make a few quicker, but smaller gains by working on their short game or putting, but the long-term and bigger gains almost always come from the full swing.

 

As always, if you have a glaring weakness… work on that. The above are generalizations, but this is also true: fewer golfers are exceptions to this generalization than they think, at least in a statistically significant way.

 

If you're a 5-10 and you want to get to scratch, I'll share my own thoughts on how you can get there. Lou/Hutch have their own in the article that you can read. By area, that list is:

 

• Approach Shots - Learn to hit the ball solidly (ball first, ground after, center of the clubface) with a predictable curve. Hit it solid and if you draw it or fade it, then draw it or fade it just about every time. I don't care if you curve your ball 20 yards with a 7I, if it curves 15-25 yards every time… you can play good golf.
• Drive - Almost the same - hit it solid and with a predictable curve. Speed train if you want because it increases your control at your "cruising speed," but hitting it solid is the first step toward gaining distance. Learn your good launch conditions and hit the driver solidly. Play a shot that curves how you want, and/or find a "fairway finder" type swing.
• Short Game - Develop two or three core shots. A high one (not super flops, just a stock high shot) and a low one (low spinners if you want, just a lower ball that rolls out a little if you don't). And by this I mean… with the same club, because then you can use those techniques with other clubs to get more ball flights or shots.
• Putting - Work on your distance control first and stop giving away three-putts and stop missing the makable ones because you can't marry line and speed. Green reading will often improve as a result of better distance control.

 

It will take some time, but I've had students get from 10 to scratch over the course of a few years practicing as little as 15-20 minutes a day as long as it's good, super-focused practice, and playing once a week or even less. I had one student a few years ago who went from 5.4 to 0.2 over the winter - his first eight rounds in the spring were counting rounds that dropped his handicap like a rock. (He worked his tail off and had a launch monitor at home, and he's definitely an exception as you can see from the time tables from the Hutch study above.)

 

Avoid seeking the quick fix. Find your priority piece(s). Learn your tendencies. Be methodical. Put in the time, even if it's a little bit every day.

[ChaosTheory]

@iacas

Coincidentally I’m doing the exact things you listed. Maybe because I have your book. 🙂

 

 I’m down to my lowest index ever, at 7.5.  But I feel the lowest I can hope for is 6.  To go lower, I’d have to play longer, higher-rated tees. 
 

What feels like a typical “I left a lot out there” round is now 77-78 versus the 81-83 before. But it’s funny, I can’t put my finger on what’s better. Seems like a lot of little things. 

[PitchPlease]

Interesting read. I'm trying to improve from a 10. My Arccos data is telling me the same thing. My goal HCP in the app is a 5 and it says that I'm there from a strokes gained perspective with driving, short, and putting but am losing 4-5 strokes with approach. My assumption is that this is a combination of technique and course management.

 

I played high level baseball growing up and knew how to self correct. I am relatively new to golf (~4 years) so I just don't know what I don't know. I joined a club this year and am going to start lessons/coaching with the head pro. Hope that my approach (and overall) play improves. Will be interesting to track. 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, ChaosTheory said:

 

What feels like a typical “I left a lot out there” round is now 77-78 versus the 81-83 before. But it’s funny, I can’t put my finger on what’s better. Seems like a lot of little things.

 

Do you track your stats? Given the number of ways you can do it easily these days, I consider it a must.

 

Some of the Tour guys I work with are funny because they want help, but they don't want to look at their stats. They believe they're a good wedge player, maybe, but are nervous the stats are going to say that they're not. Or driving, or approach shots, or whatever.

 

But they look (and decreasingly many are funny about that stuff), and they can tailor their practice and work to the areas that need help.

 

6 minutes ago, PitchPlease said:

Interesting read. I'm trying to improve from a 10. My Arccos data is telling me the same thing. My goal HCP in the app is a 5 and it says that I'm there from a strokes gained perspective with driving, short, and putting but am losing 4-5 strokes with approach. My assumption is that this is a combination of technique and course management.

 

Wow, yeah, that's a glaring weakness if you are there and losing all of your strokes in the one category.

 

Good luck. Understand that it will take some time (both from you, weekly, and overall to get there) and stay disciplined.

[DShepley]

If you want to be a scratch, you need to find a way to hit at least 10 GIR per round. Also you need to scramble near 50%.

Edited June 18 by DShepley

[me05501]

45 minutes ago, ChaosTheory said:

What feels like a typical “I left a lot out there” round is now 77-78 versus the 81-83 before. But it’s funny, I can’t put my finger on what’s better. Seems like a lot of little things. 

 

 

I think the trajectory you describe here is so real.

 

We players who are working on our game expect our best rounds to get a lot better, which can certainly happen. The bigger improvement seems to be how our worst scores still fall into an acceptable range. 

 

A younger guy I sometimes play with was complaining about how off his game felt the other day. He really chopped it up on several holes but ended up with a ho-hum 86 off a handicap of probably 10-11. I told him "when you feel awful about shooting 86 it probably means you're getting pretty good at this."

[DShepley]

7 minutes ago, me05501 said:

 

 

I think the trajectory you describe here is so real.

 

We players who are working on our game expect our best rounds to get a lot better, which can certainly happen. The bigger improvement seems to be how our worst scores still fall into an acceptable range. 

 

A younger guy I sometimes play with was complaining about how off his game felt the other day. He really chopped it up on several holes but ended up with a ho-hum 86 off a handicap of probably 10-11. I told him "when you feel awful about shooting 86 it probably means you're getting pretty good at this."

Tempering the expectations is also a requirement.  We only shoot our handicap or better 20-25% of the time.  It's the improvement of your high scores that often has the biggest impact on lowering the handicap.

[Ty_Webb]

33 minutes ago, DShepley said:

It's the improvement of your high scores that often has the biggest impact on lowering the handicap.

 

But your high scores aren't included in your index - it's just the best 8 of last 20 scores. These two people have the same index (all same course and tees and scores ordered by score, not date):

 

A - 71, 72, 72, 73, 73, 74, 74, 75, 75, 76, 77, 77, 78, 79, 79, 80, 81, 82, 82, 83

B - 71, 72, 72, 73, 73, 74, 74, 75, 95, 96, 97, 97, 98, 99, 99, 100, 101, 102, 102, 103

 

It's your low 8 scores that you need to get better if you want a lower HI.

[Ty_Webb]

1 hour ago, ChaosTheory said:

What feels like a typical “I left a lot out there” round is now 77-78 versus the 81-83 before. But it’s funny, I can’t put my finger on what’s better. Seems like a lot of little things. 

 

I think that's what a lot of people find surprising is how uninspiring scratch golf is. It's about limiting your mistakes far more so than hitting great shots. Par golf is boring. Hit it in the fairway, hit it on the green about 25 feet away and 2 putts. If you do that a lot, you'll get pretty good. 

 

I actually found one of the things that helped me picture how partial strokes in strokes gained terms works was watching Wesley and George Bryan playing their matches with each other. George has got better and Wesley a little worse since their earlier videos, but you can see watching their early stuff how Wesley was just a bit better at everything. A little longer, a little straighter, hit it closer, chips better and putts better. On any given shot George could hit it better than Wesley, but the weight of good shots from Wesley was pretty much always enough to win their matches. Now that's probably the difference between about a +5 and a +7. But if you watch a 0 and a 5 play I bet you'd see something similar most of the time. 

[gators78]

Really good write up.

 

I can say personally my game has improved a lot to the scratch/plus range from simplifying everything, which actually seems counterintuitive but it’s worked. 

 

The one shot shape has been extremely helpful, it is miles easier to work around a golf course when you know where the ball is going as opposed to trying to hit different shots, ESPECIALLY with limited practice time. My test is going on the range and trying to hit one shot shape for 10 balls in a row. When there’s zero pressure you should be able to hit the same shot at least 7-8 times out of 10. If not, there’s something to focus on with the mechanics to build that shot in. 

 

Similar on short game shots, I get away with a higher shot, basic pitch, and bunker shot. I focus a lot on 10-15 footers during practice. 

[DShepley]

10 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

But your high scores aren't included in your index - it's just the best 8 of last 20 scores. These two people have the same index (all same course and tees and scores ordered by score, not date):

 

A - 71, 72, 72, 73, 73, 74, 74, 75, 75, 76, 77, 77, 78, 79, 79, 80, 81, 82, 82, 83

B - 71, 72, 72, 73, 73, 74, 74, 75, 95, 96, 97, 97, 98, 99, 99, 100, 101, 102, 102, 103

 

It's your low 8 scores that you need to get better if you want a lower HI.

I meant the higher of your low 8.  You often see an improvement in scoring dispersion before breaking through the bottom end.  It's when your last counting scores become 74s and not 77s.

Edited June 18 by DShepley

[dubbelbogey]

Yup - I find very little to disagree with here. I'm in the low single digit range and am quite sure - based on tracking my own stats - that my main weakness is approach/iron play. Driving is typically pretty good, sometimes even a strength, but I do have off days where bad driving wrecks a round. But even those are usually in the minority of high score rounds that don't generally affect the handicap index over time, as illustrated above.

 

Now, if I'm honest, I've not been particularly focused on real improvement over the past couple of years. I'm trying to convince myself to find that focus...

 

Is reaching scratch a real goal of mine? Not really, though it'd be fun to hit at some point. I'd like to think I'm more interested in the general process of improvement. I know that sounds cliche, but I think that's the general gist of things for my game. Wherever it ends up, so be it. I have to also temper this with the reality I'm of the age where gaining much speed isn't highly likely. Maybe some small gains, or just maintaining what speed I do have.

 

 

 

 

[getitdaily]

Fantastic post. 

[Ty_Webb]

9 minutes ago, DShepley said:

I meant the higher of your low 8.  You often see an improvement in scoring dispersion before breaking through the bottom end.  It's when your last counting scores become 74s and not 77s.

 

That's true - much easier to turn 77 into 74 than 71 into 68.

[DShepley]

18 minutes ago, dubbelbogey said:

Yup - I find very little to disagree with here. I'm in the low single digit range and am quite sure - based on tracking my own stats - that my main weakness is approach/iron play. Driving is typically pretty good, sometimes even a strength, but I do have off days where bad driving wrecks a round. But even those are usually in the minority of high score rounds that don't generally affect the handicap index over time, as illustrated above.

 

Now, if I'm honest, I've not been particularly focused on real improvement over the past couple of years. I'm trying to convince myself to find that focus...

 

Is reaching scratch a real goal of mine? Not really, though it'd be fun to hit at some point. I'd like to think I'm more interested in the general process of improvement. I know that sounds cliche, but I think that's the general gist of things for my game. Wherever it ends up, so be it. I have to also temper this with the reality I'm of the age where gaining much speed isn't highly likely. Maybe some small gains, or just maintaining what speed I do have.

 

 

 

 

The best part of golf to me, once you get to a low handicap point is the excitement when you have a round going and successfully complete it for a personal best.  It's that chase that keeps me going.  I'm much more relaxed about golf these days and find a couple good matches a few times per year but mostly like the time away and the company on the course.  Competitive golf is a grind and sometimes can lead one into negative places.

[DShepley]

18 minutes ago, getitdaily said:

Fantastic post. 

It's a really good post

[iacas]

I forgot to say in the OP that if you're this guy:

• 1.25 strokes lost off the tee
• 1.25 strokes lost in approach
• 1.25 strokes lost around the greens
• 1.25 strokes lost putting

You are NOT a well-rounded golfer for your handicap level as compared to the next better handicap level you're using in the comparison — you have a glaring weakness (or two): putting and the short game.

 

What those numbers would look like if you were well-rounded (for your handicap level) is:

• 1.4 shots lost off the tee
• 1.9 shots lost in approach
• 0.9 shots lost around the greens
• 0.7 shots lost putting

That's a "balanced" golfer for his handicap level, and a high percentage of golfers are pretty close to those ranges.

 

There's more of what I call "Separation Value®" to be had in the full swing, so you "should" be worse at that. That's also why you that's the area where you stand to gain more ground..

 

So, for those of you looking at your stats, remember to apply roughly 30%, 40%, 20%, and 10% to your stats (OTT, APP, ATG, PUT) when considering areas of strength or weakness.

[Ty_Webb]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

I forgot to say in the OP that if you're this guy:

• 1.25 strokes lost off the tee
• 1.25 strokes lost in approach
• 1.25 strokes lost around the greens
• 1.25 strokes lost putting

You are NOT a well-rounded golfer for your handicap level as compared to the next better handicap level you're using in the comparison — you have a glaring weakness (or two): putting and the short game.

 

What those numbers would look like if you were well-rounded (for your handicap level) is:

• 1.4 shots lost off the tee
• 1.9 shots lost in approach
• 0.9 shots lost around the greens
• 0.7 shots lost putting

That's a "balanced" golfer for his handicap level, and a high percentage of golfers are pretty close to those ranges.

 

There's more of what I call "Separation Value®" to be had in the full swing, so you "should" be worse at that. That's also why you that's the area where you stand to gain more ground..

 

So, for those of you looking at your stats, remember to apply roughly 30%, 40%, 20%, and 10% to your stats (OTT, APP, ATG, PUT) when considering areas of strength or weakness.

 

Great point - and if you run that against your peer group you'd get about +0.15; +0.65; -0.35; -0.55 - that's a good reason to use your peer group as your measure for strokes gained. 

[MonteScheinblum]

Here’s the issue with this post.

 

What I called the grandfather affect.  Not everyone learned their narratives from their grandfather, but it’s a perfect label for old information.  
 

I listen to grandfathers give lessons to their grandkids, including my ex wife’s dad to my son.

 

Keep your head down

Grip it light

Just swing smooth

Swing to right field

Lead with your body

Etc.

 

The same is true with how to lower your handicap.

 

Drive for show putt for dough

It’s all in the short game

 

It doesn’t matter to many golfers what the data says on improving handicap or what actually happens in a good swing, getting people to change their belief systems is hard.

 

I once had a guy tell me it doesn’t matter if you drive it 300 yards if you 3 and 4 putt every hole.  I said it doesn’t matter if you 1 putt every hole if you hit it OB and lose your ball off every tee and miss greens with wedges.  His response was that’s ridiculous, no golfer does that.  I countered with no one hits it 300 yards in the fairway and on the green with wedges regularly, 3 and 4 putts all the time.  He said he sees it all the time.  

 

Debates on the swing and how to lower handicap are no different than the flat earth debate.  One side beats there head on the wall trying to convince the other side of the facts, while said other side amuses themselves by countering with twisted beliefs.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Great point - and if you run that against your peer group you'd get about +0.15; +0.65; -0.35; -0.55 - that's a good reason to use your peer group as your measure for strokes gained. 

 

Yes, exactly. It's funny how seldom people compare it to their handicap group, and how often they compare it to where they want to get to. 😄 

[bortass]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Yes, exactly. It's funny how seldom people compare it to their handicap group, and how often they compare it to where they want to get to. 😄 

Quick question. if someone is trying to get better, should they look at SG stats compared to where they are now or where they want to get too? The comment above leads me to think it's the where they are now to see where the are deficient compared to their peers versus how far away they are from the peer group of better golfers they want to join? 

[petep52]

Great post. Thanks. I love the simplicity of irons saying to hit the ball then the ground and then get a predictable curve. My son is learning to golf. He’s had a lot of instruction but now on the course he’s struggled. He’s been working on hit ball then ground. So easy to think about, and then he watched the US and saw divots flying all over. It’s so obvious, but I love seeing stats back up the most basic stuff.  

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Here’s the issue with this post.

 

What I called the grandfather affect.  Not everyone learned their narratives from their grandfather, but it’s a perfect label for old information.  
 

I listen to grandfathers give lessons to their grandkids, including my ex wife’s dad to my son.

 

Keep your head down

Grip it light

Just swing smooth

Swing to right field

Lead with your body

Etc.

 

The same is true with how to lower your handicap.

 

Drive for show putt for dough

It’s all in the short game

 

It doesn’t matter to many golfers what the data says on improving handicap or what actually happens in a good swing, getting people to change their belief systems is hard.

 

I once had a guy tell me it doesn’t matter if you drive it 300 yards if you 3 and 4 putt every hole.  I said it doesn’t matter if you 1 putt every hole if you hit it OB and lose your ball off every tee and miss greens with wedges.  His response was that’s ridiculous, no golfer does that.  I countered with no one hits it 300 yards in the fairway and on the green with wedges regularly, 3 and 4 putts all the time.  He said he sees it all the time.  

 

Debates on the swing and how to lower handicap are no different than the flat earth debate.  One side beats there head on the wall trying to convince the other side of the facts, while said other side amuses themselves by countering with twisted beliefs.

Peer reviewed analysis has proven the 30%, 40%, 20%, and 10% weighting of (OTT, APP, ATG, PUT). Literally nothing else was required for me to accept that truth. Critical thinking in the golf population as a whole should be better than the general population because of the nature of the game. Why then is the truth so hard to accept?

[Ty_Webb]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes, exactly. It's funny how seldom people compare it to their handicap group, and how often they compare it to where they want to get to. 😄 

 

Ah yes but...

 

No but seriously - I tend to use PGA Tour because it's what I have access to and I'm aware that in my case, it's going to tell me my short game sucks (because it does) and I use it to measure how I'm improving rather than what I need to work on. 

[MonteScheinblum]

3 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Peer reviewed analysis has proven the 30%, 40%, 20%, and 10% weighting of (OTT, APP, ATG, PUT). Literally nothing else was required for me to accept that truth. Critical thinking in the golf population as a whole should be better than the general population because of the nature of the game. Why then is the truth so hard to accept?

The same reason long standing famous teaching pros won’t move of their narrative.  They’d have to admit doing things wrong and golfers would have to admit wasting time and effort.

 

 

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, bortass said:

Quick question. if someone is trying to get better, should they look at SG stats compared to where they are now or where they want to get too? The comment above leads me to think it's the where they are now to see where the are deficient compared to their peers versus how far away they are from the peer group of better golfers they want to join? 

 

[Petethreeput]

10 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Peer reviewed analysis has proven the 30%, 40%, 20%, and 10% weighting of (OTT, APP, ATG, PUT). Literally nothing else was required for me to accept that truth. Critical thinking in the golf population as a whole should be better than the general population because of the nature of the game. Why then is the truth so hard to accept?

I don't think it is the nature of the game, I think it is the nature of the human playing the game.  Physically the easiest way to improve is around and on the greens, at least from a statistical standpoint, though the improvement won't be as great.

 

I think the other reason is a mix of ego and peer grading.  No one wants to admit they are average which means very few recreational golfers (male in this case) hit their drives 225... it has to be more.  Once they believe this, then anyone longer than they are have to be hitting 275-300 (the player in Monte's example).  Ultimately, without accurate data, the person who wants to improve doesn't see their long game as a problem.

 

These would be my two reasons for the fallacy to continue.

Edited June 18 by Petethreeput

[DShepley]

18 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Yes both.  An eye on the better range as a target but a focus on being among the best and beating your current group.  You can't move to the next level if you are losing strokes against the peers in your current group.

Edited June 18 by DShepley

[ThinkingPlus]

12 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

The same reason long standing famous teaching pros won’t move of their narrative.  They’d have to admit doing things wrong and golfers would have to admit wasting time and effort.

 

 

There are many things in STEM that folks probably find objectionable, but you have to admire how ego is never put before the truth.

[Ty_Webb]

12 minutes ago, bortass said:

Quick question. if someone is trying to get better, should they look at SG stats compared to where they are now or where they want to get too? The comment above leads me to think it's the where they are now to see where the are deficient compared to their peers versus how far away they are from the peer group of better golfers they want to join? 

 

As @iacas said, you probably want to do both. I think this is an "it depends" situation though. For example, in the example above where you're -1.25 for each thing vs where you want to get to (so 5 strokes better). You need to work on all four and you ideally need to get about 1.25 shots better at each one. The second set vs your peers tells you what might be the easiest thing to work at. Here that would be putting and short game. So if you want to get a little better, then work on your putting and short game. If you want to get a lot better then you need to work on all of it. Improving 1.25 strokes approach might be difficult without quite a bit of work. 1.25 on driving might be some speed work or might overlap with the approach one. You may also have some other issue (like the y word) that's going to make it difficult to improve that part of your game at all - or if you can fix them might be an easy jump to improving. I think you want to look at the stats and then consider your game and what the issues are and then figure out a path to improvement.