I'm loving intellectual powerhouse Kip Henley trying to go after you on Twitter, Scott.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

Unreal that Cink essentially said "my old caddies would always try to get me to play more aggressive and now with my son I am playing like I knew was correct using DECADE" (and I've won twice since) on PGA Tour Radio last week.

Kip's one of my twitter "hate follows." Started following him because hey, PGA Tour caddie who's active on twitter, but stuck around for some of his awful takes and excuses. Very little nuance. "Golf is about winning tournaments so I'm always telling my guy to go for those birdies." How he can say that with a straight face after Cink pretty much says he was one of the reasons he wasn't succeeding is pretty funny.

It's truly insane. Add Arron Oberholser to the mix and man do I waste time and energy on Twitter. FML.

did he mention decade or is he still holding out?

He finally did when directly asked on PGA Tour radio after they said I was on the day before going over his process. We've emailed since and he's been super cool.

Didn't hurt that Cink got into decent shape. He's gained about 10 yards, which is quite a bit, and he's about 2% better in the fairway (58% compared to 56%).

Tee-green he's gained a half shot over last year. Putting marginally better.

His clubhead speed on confirmed drivers is essentially the same. An increase in overall driving distance is likely due to hitting more drivers than him actually hitting it farther...which is DECADE. As for 2% more fairways, that's barely more than one more per 72 hole event. Essentially a non-factor.

"You and your dumb numbers."
- Uncle Kip

Yeah, I was wondering about % of drivers apples to apples. Cink did mention in an interview that he has taken his physical conditioning much more seriously than in the past. I only brought up the fairway % because extra distance without the accuracy does not mean much. But if he is more accurate with driver than 3 wood than it's likely a bit more than a non-factor.

I am not trying to diminish DECADE in any way.

To expand on the above, let's say Cink last season was using 3W 4 times in a round, and driver 10. Assuming 296 average and 3W going 30 yards less than driver, Cink was hitting 3W 274.6 and driver 304.6. This season let's assume Cink uses 3W less (only once), and driver 13 times in a round. Assuming 306 average and same 30 yard difference Cink is now hitting 3W 278.1 and driver 308.1, or 3.5 yards further than last year.

Regarding fairway %, assuming 53% driver rate last season, and same 10/4 driver/3W mix, his 3W rate was 10.5% better or 63.5%. This season, using same 10.5% improvement for 3W and 13/1 driver/3W mix, his driver rate is 57.3%. Basically, +3.5 yards and +4.3 pct points better than last season with driver. About +1.5 mph club head speed and 2.2 more fairways per round.

My assumptions might be a bit off but +3.5 yards and 2.2 fairways per 72 holes seems material.

You mean Scott might be drawing conclusions from the data based off his own wishes, biases, and assumptions? Lol. He is even--if he wants to tell you he isn't. PGA tour strokes gained data has substantial biases that are inherent to the data set. This is obvious. I'm not saying his assumptions are wrong or that DECADE is a bad system. It's not some holy grail, but it's loosely based on the data. Not because the shot link data is bad, but because Scott is overlaying his own assumptions on to it. Those assumptions are good or bad. You decide.

Don't take his word as gospel. A lot of what he says has been around for a long time he is just repackaging it. When I was playing in college 15 years ago my coach, an accomplished player (multiple years on PGA tour), used to tell us to think about most approach shots as "doglegs". He was saying play your approach X yards left or right and then putt back at the hole. That is essentially what Scott is doing with decade.

Also, I get a big chuckle every time some tour player not associated with Scott does something well he claims "THAT'S DECADE." It comes off as the kid on the school yard who wants everyone to think he is really great at X, but really he is kind of slightly above average. Also, those times he drops his +5 handicap are mega cringe.

Hold on, I gotta make some popcorn.....

Between this thread and the Club fitting thread, you had better make it a double.

Humans are simply amazing aren't we...

No offense, but you have no idea what assumptions I made, how I made them, or how I accounted for them.

As for your college coach, did he give you actual numbers as to how far away to aim? Oh, didn't think so. The quantifying of your coaches statements is a game changer and the results on ALL Tours worldwide indicates as much.

How do you know who is or isn't associated with me? I'm pretty sure a +5 is a little better than "slightly above average" and I am being looked to as an authority figure so letting people know I can play is quite important. I'm not a data nerd who doesn't know how to play, I'm a player who also understands the data better than anyone else on the entire planet.

Absolutely amazing how somebody like you can have all of these opinions based on nothing more than Twitter and think you have it all figured out. Let me know if you ever want to play for any amount you can scrape together and I'll be there...

Your assumptions are implicit to your conclusions. I shouldn't need to point that out.

Again, you gloss over critical assumptions with no explanations and expect people to take your conclusions as gospel. It's ridiculous. The data you cite *may* point to the conclusions you make, but there are often many other explanations that are equally plausible. Anyone who actually understood the data, and statistical limitations, or looked at it with a critical mind would acknowledge that it is fallible.

I had never been on your twitter until maybe a month ago (I found out you were on 2p2 via a YouTube video). I was a DECADE user. This is how I was initially exposed to your ideas. I signed up for DECADE because I was curious about what concepts you might be teaching and how you analyzed the data. It was your courses where I studied and analyzed what you were teaching. The flaws were obvious within my first couple months toying with your ideas.

FYI, I've been involved in statistical analysis in a performance discipline for 15 years. I like stats. I just don't like when people butcher them. I don't think I have it all figured out, but I know the limitations of statistical analysis. Your system falls into a number of well worn traps.

If you're making these assertions without detailing them or providing examples for discussion you just look like a clown. I'm sure that discussion would be welcomed.

The most generous interpretation of what you're saying is "simplifying assumptions had to be made so the system isn't 100% flawless in all situations". No ****. Not every golf course is the same. Not every golfer is the same. Not sure if you want a cookie for figuring that out or what.

Nobody else has come close to breaking down course management into a system that is easy to learn and as effective.

tomturtle, i'm sure if you want to start a healthy debate in this thread based on facts and reason it would be a welcome place for it. until that point in time you come off as either a troll or a competitor, neither of which will be taken seriously based upon the knowledge you've chosen (or not chosen) to display.

This is just all so odd to me. Essentially you are saying that since I don't share my work for some sort of peer review it is worthless. Got it, don't use it. I know the work that went into it, what traps lay (please point one out), and will then hold up the results of the players I work with as validation. Good luck to you...

Thanks guys...these feel spot on and reasonable. I'm really stunned at the other (I'm assuming) troll. Sucks because I am so over the arguing lifestyle and just want to teach, but shitbags like this just keep coming along and wanting to argue. I'm really at a loss (obviously) how I should handle them. I'm clearly not mature enough to not want to defend my work, but wow is it pointless.

I also fall under the not mature enough category, but honestly I think some of the twitter feuding has helped get the word out about decade so it may not be as useless at it feels.

The fun thing about sports analytics in general is it allows the nerds at home to feel superior to NFL coaches, baseball managers, and in this case some pro golfers etc, and I think the occasional beef might even help sell your product as long as you don't get too out of line.

Good news is that when there isn't enough blood on the Twitter machine...apparently I can just log in here for some fun

I do agree it brings eyes, but you'd be stunned at how many people unfollow me I assume because even I think it's getting old arguing. Then you come across a nitwit like this who clearly has no idea what I do and yet bashes. It's so odd how smart people can't just say "wow, that's a pretty solid use of the data in a way nobody else has done, thought to do, or has the background to do. Good job." THAT is what I'm sick of, but with every new 1,000 followers there's at least 20 who think they know everything and take the debate right back to square one and then my feed is just a revolving door of ****.

lol...I mean honestly. Why can't people who don't like me or what I teach just move on. Go teach what you teach and I'll teach what I teach. No biggie. It just always devolves until I have no recourse but to say "let me know when two players you've worked with win a couple majors in a row and almost a third of four consecutive majors".