Thursday, February 21, 2013

The Metamorphosis of John Merrick

Before the 2012 season, I had listed a group of players ‘to look out for’ in 2012 based on their metrics from the 2011 season:

They were:

Ben Curtis
Ian Poulter
Brendon de Jonge
Kyle Stanley
Scott Stallings
John Merrick

Curtis, Stanley and Stallings all recorded victories in 2012. De Jonge made 27 cuts and over $2 million in earnings. And Poulter established himself as one of the toughest players in the world at the Ryder Cup. That all but left Merrick, who finished 109th on the Money List and 72nd in Adjusted Scoring Average.

I chose Merrick as one of my ‘players to look out for’ because he drove the ball incredibly well in 2011; finishing 2nd in Driving Effectiveness for the year. He also hit the ball high which tends to make him fit more of today’s TPC designed Tour courses which have more forced carries. His iron play was poor, but the faulty thinking was that if a golfer drives it well on Tour, they will be a good Danger Zone player. In the end, that’s often not the case.

So, what were the issues for Merrick?

For starters, he ranked 109th in Average Purse Size per Event. While finishing 72nd in Adjusted Scoring Average is nothing to brag about, there is a correlation between ASA and Money List rankings. But, if your average Purse Size per Event is low, you are more likely to see your Money List ranking not as high as your ASA ranking.

When we look at his scoring average on particular holes, we start to see a better picture. Here were his Adjusted Scoring Average rankings on the holes (placed in order of importance):

Adj. Par-4 Scoring Average: 47th
Adj. Par-5 Scoring Average: 78th
Adj. Par-3 Scoring Average: 174th

Bogey Avoidance: 74th
Birdie (or Better): 70th

What’s interesting here is that while par-3 performance has a lower correlation of the holes when it comes to Adj. Scoring Average; it clearly hamstrung him throughout the 2012 season.

Here’s a comparison of his key ballstriking metrics in 2012 vs. 2011:

Metric………………2012 Rank…………….2011 Rank
Driving Eff……………38th………………………2nd
Birdie Zone………….46th………………………59th
Safe Zone……………104th…………………….156th
Danger Zone………..54th……………………..142nd

His Zone play was much improved from 2011. This raises the question as to why he only went from 117th on the Money List in 2011 to 109th in 2012.

First, we need a little more examination of the ballstriking. In particular, his driving radar metrics.

Club Speed………113.2……………….110.5
Launch Angle……9.87…………………11.23
Max Height………87.5…………………..97.1
Spin Rate…………2,515………………..2,863

I won’t guess Merrick’s attack angles each year. But, it’s obvious he was looking for more of a penetrating ball flight in 2012. I tend to believe that he started to hit LESS upward with the driver in 2012 to do that. While the spin rate was higher, the launch angle tends to be more telling as far as attack angles go.

Still, we have to remember that he drove it CLEARLY better in 2011. Here’s a look at the key driving metrics.

Driving Dist………..293.3…………………297.2
Fwy %..................64.5%..................67.3%
D2E of Fwy…………26.0……………………22.0

The problem I believe Merrick had was that he felt he could not continue to swing like he did in 2011. He would simply struggle too much with the irons, particularly the long irons, with that swing. Instead, he altered some of his swing mechanics and produced a more penetrating ball flight and improved his Zone play tremendously.

With that said, it still doesn’t quite answer the question as to why he didn’t improve more on the Money List.

Well, there were a few other reasons.

1. Ratio of Shots from 100-150 yards versus 150-200 yards.

Since Merrick lost a bit of distance in 2012, he ended up hitting more shots from longer distances. In 2011, on all shots from 100-200 yards, 54.5% came from 150-200 yards and 45.4% of them came from 100-150 yards.

In 2012, the splits were 60.6% from 150-200 yards and 39.4% from 100-150 yards. In the end, it was better for Merrick to improve his Safe Zone and Danger Zone play and have more shots from longer distances. But, it also prevented him from making a substantial improvement on his earnings.

2. Less Go For Its

Merrick went from 77th in Par-5 Go For Its in 2011 to 100th in 2012. Despite striking the ball much worse from the DZ and 225-275 yard distances, Merrick was able to finish 68th in Adj. Par-5 Scoring Average as opposed to 78th in 2012. While that may not seem like much, we have to remember that par-5’s have a decent correlation to Adjusted Scoring Average. This seemingly small difference would create a more pronounced effect if it were par-4 scoring average rankings.

3. Putting

Merrick finished 89th in Putts Gained in 2011 and 134th in Putts Gained in 2012. That was the equivalent of losing 20 strokes on the putting green for the year*. This would explain the struggles on the par-3’s where for most of the full-time Tour golfers par-3 play is more about being able to get up-and-down, putt well and make putts from longer distance (Merrick was 159th from 15-25 feet) in order to do well.
*(note: I took the difference in putts gained per round from 2011 to 2012 0.25 and multiplied it by the number of rounds Merrick played in 2012 of 83)

Here’s a look at Merrick’s key metrics for 2013:

Driving Effectiveness: 17th

Birdie Zone: 113th
Safe Zone: 3rd
Danger Zone: 7th

Short Game Play: 11th
Putts Gained: 127th

I think from a ballstriking perspective, Merrick is finally starting to get past those growing pains of finding the optimal swing for him that will allow him to strike it well off the tee and with the irons.


Wednesday, February 20, 2013

MOI Balance Index – A Lengthy Introduction

Before I start with this post, I would like to announce that I am planning on doing a Top Club Fitter/Club Maker List for 2013. This will come out at the same time my 3Jack Golf Top-50 Swing Instructor and Top-25 Short Game/Putting Instructor Lists will be out. So expect that to come out around July.

The Club Fitter/Club Maker list is open to anybody who does Club Fitting either part-time or full-time anywhere in the world. If you are a club fitter and are interested in making the list, please send me an e-mail at and we can further discuss your experience and credentials. Personally, my goal is to create a top-50 list of club fitters I believe are a step above the rest, but I plan on doing only a Top-25 list this year due to it being the list’s first year in existence.


If you have read the forum lately (, I started a thread called ‘MOI Balance Index.’ I have just discovered MOI Balance Index that some clubmakers are using to fit clubs at the highest level of fitting.

But first, a background into how I got into this…

Back in 2011 I had been reading articles and golfer’s posts on the value of MOI matching. I didn’t quite understand it other than it was supposed to be a replacement for Swingweight Matching.

For a long time, there were many issues I had with swingweight matching, like:

It’s not really a scientific measurement. Scientists do not use ‘swingweight’ in any form of scientific study or measurement.

The swingweight scales seemed very inaccurate and inconsistent. I had taken the same clubs to different clubmakers and come back with noticeably different swingweight readings. The only consistent swingweight machine seems to be the digital swingweight machine.


It did not make much sense that a golfer could replace a 50 gram grip with a 62 gram grip and the swingweight would become lighter.

Having been to the demo day version of the PGA Show where clubs are all marked with the swingweight, they often felt extremely different from a heft perspective despite having the same swingweight.

I ended up putting together a set of Wishon 555 model irons. The 3 and 4-irons were cavity backs, the 5-PW were musclebacks. I ended up liking the set overall, but I noticed that once again, I hit some clubs far better than other clubs. In this set, I hit the 4-iron and 7-iron the best. And I hit the 3-iron and 9-iron the worst. Eventually, I started to understand what MOI matching was about.

It is measuring the MOI of the ENTIRE golf club, not just the clubhead.

This produces a measurement (MOI) that determines the amount of effort to swing the club. The key is to determine how much effort the golfer produces in their swing. Find the match and that is how you find your optimal MOI. From there, you simply match the MOI for the rest of the IRONS (drivers, hybrids and fairway woods are different).

With that, I took the plunge and purchased an MOI machine


When I measured each of my clubs, I found the following.

The worst clubs in my bag, the 3-iron and 9-iron, had the 2 lowest MOI’s of any club in my bag (2,620 and 2,638 respectively)

The 2 best clubs in my bag, the 4-iron and 7-iron, had the 2 highest MOI’s of any of the irons in my bag (2,702 and 2,695 respectively).

This all led to me fitting for my own MOI and I discovered my optimal MOI with the irons is at 2,725. And that is why I hit the 4-iron and 7-iron so well, they were both the closest irons to my optimal MOI of 2,725. I also started to measure the MOI of all of my old sets of irons and found in EVERY set that the best irons I hit were always close to my optimal MOI and the worst irons were far away from my optimal MOI.

Eventually I wanted to fit for MOI with my driver. I used a Wishon 919THI driver for the fitting that I never gamed because the ball would fly too low. As I fitted for the MOI with the driver, not only did the impact dispersion improve, but the ball flight improved dramatically. That’s when I was sold on the concept of MOI matching


One of the things I discovered after MOI matching was that not all MOI matches feel quite the same. Furthermore, while MOI matching greatly reduces the impact dispersion laterally (heel to toe), if your swing is not quite on point you can still miss the sweetspot point either high or low like you can with non-MOI matched clubs.

And while I never experienced it myself or with a customer, I had heard some people complain that either the long irons either felt too ‘head light’ or the long irons felt too ‘head heavy’ in a MOI matched set.

Lastly, I started to notice that not all MOI matched clubs feel the same. I had some Edel wedges that I personally MOI matched. But they felt fairly heavy to me and when I measured the static weight of the clubs, I found them to be very heavy. I then removed the KBS C-Taper shafts and found that the Edel head weights were very heavy, with the 56° wedge weighing in at 307 grams (normal is about 300 grams) and the 60° LW weighing in at 309 grams (normal is about 302-304 grams).

I eventually replaced them with a much lighter shaft (Dynamic Gold SL) and a lighter grip (50 gram Iomic Sticky 2.3) and started hitting the Edel wedges superbly. In fact, the 60° LW is the best lob wedge I’ve ever hit.

This is where I started to notice the importance of STATIC WEIGHTS and the importance of weight in the 3 major components of each club (grip, shaft (trimmed) and clubhead). I started to try this with a few customers and started to see a difference in being able to MOI match clubs versus MOI matching clubs and finding the optimal combination of component weights. I found that I probably play best with a 50 gram grip, 105-118 gram shaft and more weight in the clubhead. I also found a customer with the same optimal irons MOI and he played better with more weight in the shaft and grip and less weight in the clubhead.


This leads to MOI Balance Index (MBI).

Recently, I had mentioned what I had discovered with MOI matching and understanding the weights of the main components. And this is something that has been worked upon by different club fitters. In fact, one of them spent 3 years perfecting a ‘calculator’ to determine MBI. It can be found here:

So, what is MOI Balance Index?

First, you need to MOI fit and match your clubs. When you do this, you will notice a great improvement in how precise the impact contact will be. However, you will still find some clubs that you noticeably hit better than others.

The club that you hit best is the club that you want to find where the balance index of the club resides. Some clubs the balance index may be more towards the butt end of the club. Other clubs it may be more towards the clubhead. If you can find the MBI for that best club that you have already MOI matched, you can then match determine the MBI for the rest of the clubs and then work to match them to the best club.


As it shows in the spreadsheet, it is a time consuming process. And according to the spreadsheet creator, it may not be feasible if you are running a business.

But, I have found some very interesting things with the spreadsheet.

EVERYTHING matters. Head weight, shaft weight, tip weight, grip weight, grip cap size, ferrule, lead tape, etc. Everything plays a factor in your MBI calculation.

The type of clubhead matters. Driver heads will alter the MBI from a fairway wood head. Same with hybrids and irons.

The type of iron heads matter in MBI. A game improvement style of iron will alter the MBI than a muscleback which will alter from a regular cavity back iron. And if you have every hit the same club but going from a GI head to a blade head, you can feel a different balance.

And that is in part of what MBI is really about. While MOI matching figures out the amount of effort involved in swinging the club, the MBI gives more of a determination of feel and helps produce the same feel for all of the clubs in the bag.

I plan on doing MBI with my next set of irons, which will be a set of the Wishon 575MMC irons


I’m currently working on a few new things with my swing after my latest lesson with my instructor, George Hunt ( After that I would like to try out the new PURE grip model (PTX) which should come out in April. At about that time I will probably purchase the irons and I will update my progress working on MBI.


Tuesday, February 19, 2013

New GolfWRX Column: Numbers Behind Going For it #10 Riviera

This past weekend, we saw No. 10 at Riviera Country Club provide PGA Tour players with a dilemma as to whether to go for it on the 315-yard par-4. In my last column, I discussed the numbers on Tour behind going for par-5's in two shots and that in general, golfers are better off going for par-5's in two shots rather than laying up to a specific yardage.

However, much of the decision revolves around whether or not the golfer can get the ball inside 40 yards of the hole. If not, he would be better off laying up to a specific yardage. With No. 10 at Riviera, itfs a different situation given that it is a par-4 rather than a par-5. Initially, my thoughts were that Tour golfers would be better off going for No. 10 off the tee because there was no out-of-bounds or water in play. Here is what the final numbers through all four rounds looked like:

Read More:

Sunday, February 17, 2013

Week In Review - 2.17.13

This week I discuss:

- John Merrick winning the Northern Trust Open
- #10 at Riviera
- Pressure throughout the Swing video by 5 Simple Keys
- Quintic Consultancy Review of Trackman
- Jim Goergen's Short Game Series videos


Thursday, February 14, 2013

Critical PGA Tour Holes - #10 at Riviera Country Club


In the next few weeks I will be introducing a new metric called ‘Critical Hole Index.’ In my ongoing research for Pro Golf Synopsis, I’ve discovered the following:

1. Anything can happen in 1 round of golf and it does not justly represent a golfer’s skill.

2. The more rounds in a tournament, the more it accurately represents the golfer’s skill for THAT tournament.

This is very much like any sport. For instance, the worst baseball team in the league can beat the best baseball team in the league in any given game. But if it’s a 4-game series then the best team in the league will likely win 3 out of the 4 games. That’s part of the excitement of college basketball’s ‘March Madness’; the fact that in any given game some small, unheralded school can defeat a powerhouse and end their season. But in the end, usually one of the best teams in college wins the tournament.

In golf, somebody like Henrik Norlander can beat the hottest golfer on the Tour right now in Brandt Snedeker for a round. But for 4 rounds Snedeker is most likely to come up with the lower score.

With that my research has uncovered that each tournament has a certain select amount of holes that are more critical than others. And usually this does not change over the years. I won’t give up how I determine a ‘critical hole’ (proprietary information). But, these are the holes that have historically translated to success in each tournament. The better the golfer does on these specific holes, the more likely they will do better in the tournament. Believe me that cannot be said about all golf holes in a tournament. Often times because you can birdie a certain hole, but everybody else is birdieing the hole as well. In the end, you played the hole well relative to par, but were average relative to the field.

At the Sony Open, there are 3 critical holes at Waialae Country Club.

At the Humana Challenge there are 9 critical holes spread throughout PGA Palmer, PGA Nicklaus and La Quinta.

At the Waste Management there are 4 critical holes at TPC Scottsdale

At AT&T Pebble Beach there a 8 critical holes between Pebble, Monterrey Peninsula and Spyglass.

In fact, one of the critical holes at AT&T Pebble is the 16th hole. While Snedeker won slightly convincingly, Chris Kirk had a real chance to force a playoff, but missed a 6-foot birdie putt on 16. Had he made that he would have gotten to -17, 1 shot from Snedeker. Snedeker was playing in the group behind him and may have felt a little more pressure with Kirk only down by one with a birdie-able hole on 18.

Instead, Kirk missed and missed a chance to gain a stroke on Snedeker. Snedeker extended his lead to 3 strokes by making birdie on 17 and won by 2 shots.


There are 5 Critical Holes at Riviera. One of them being the 10th hole, a reachable 315 yard par-4


Play #10 well and one can make up a lot of shots on the field.

The 10th hole plays into the entire risk vs. reward scenario. However, there are a couple of problems from a statistical analysis standpoint:

A. The Tour does not provide data on scoring on par-4’s that the player attempts to hit the green on the drive.

B. The Tour does not provide proximity to the cup data on bunker shots from certain distances.

If we had those, we could better formulate an idea of whether going for #10 is worth it. Even still, every reachable par-4 does not play the same way. #17 at TPC Scottsdale is relatively a no brainer for a Tour golfer to go for it. While playing a reachable par-4 like the 16th at the K-Club requires heavy consideration due to the water.

Below is a yardage book that one of my clients sent me on #10 at Riviera.


As I’ve mentioned many times, generally the numbers do not like golfers leaving their driver in the bag; even with high handicappers. The loss of potential distance is too great. To me, leaving your driver in the bag should be considered a last resort. Either it’s just not feasible to hit a driver because the landing area is too short or like #1 at Bay Hill, it requires a sizeable enough draw or you will find the fairway bunker.


The absolute last resort is if you are so poor with the driver that you have to hit a lesser club off the tee just to keep it in play. But, if you want to improve your score in the long run, you need to go to the range, see an instructor, get better fitted, etc; and fix your driving woes.

Since #10 does not have any water that tends to favor the players hitting a driver. However, we still have to worry about the bunkers and the rough.

I believe that if the golfer legitimately feels that they can avoid the far left bunker, the far right bunker then it is worth going for it. If they go into the greenside bunkers, this will likely leave a bunker shot of 20-30 yards where the Tour average sand save % was 48% in 2012. A bunker shot from 30-40 yards had a Tour average Sand Save % of 33%. The Tour average of getting up-and-in from 50-125 yards is less than 10%.

The problem arises if the get into the far left bunker where the shot to the middle of the green is about 51 yards. A shot that no player, regardless how good they are, wants to hit. And the right bunker causes even bigger issues.

It’s not to say that laying up on this hole is completely a bad idea. If the golfer does not feel like they can comfortably avoid those 2 bunkers with a driver, then I would wholeheartedly agree that they should lay and try to find the fairway.

But for golfers who can get past those two bunkers, I estimate they increase their birdie chances by about 12% and bogey avoidance by 26%. All that is left is the execution.


Wednesday, February 13, 2013

3Jack Golf's PGA Tour Rundown - Week 7

Here’s how my AT&T Pebble Beach picks finished:

Dustin Johnson: 10/1 (MC)
Brandt Snedeker: 12/1 (1st)
Padraig Harrington: 25/1 (MC)
Robert Garrigus: 28/1 (t-22nd)
Jimmy Walker: 35/1 (t-3rd)
Ryan Palmer: 35/1 (MC)
Bryce Molder: 60/1 (t-12th)
Bob Estes: 125/1 (t-30th)
Kevin Chappell: 150/1 (MC)

Value Pick: Davis Love III: 150/1 (DNP)

Here are my picks for Riviera:

Phil Mickelson: 12/1
Jimmy Walker: 33/1
Aaron Baddeley: 33/1
Scott Piercy: 40/1
Chris Kirk: 50/1
Charles Howell III: 50/1
Kevin Stadler: 70/1
Russell Henley: 80/1
Ryan Palmer: 80/1

Value Pick: JB Holmes: 80/1

After Riviera, I will start putting up the metrics for Driving Effectiveness, Putts Gained, Short Game Play, Birdie Zone, Safe Zone and Danger Zone play. Hopefully I will also introduce the metric ‘Critical Hole Index.’

For now, here’s the top-50 players in Driving Effectiveness:

1. Weekley, Boo
2. Stadler, Kevin
3. Trahan, D.J.
4. Streelman, Kevin
5. Palmer, Ryan
6. Glover, Lucas
7. Cantlay, Patrick
8. Knox, Russell
9. Spieth, Jordan
10. Thompson, Nicholas
11. de Jonge, Brendon
12. Maggert, Jeff
13. Pride, Dicky
14. Horschel, Billy
15. Henley, Russell
16. Fisher, Ross
17. Merrick, John
18. Duke, Ken
19. Norlander, Henrik
20. Fritsch, Brad
21. Jones, Matt
22. Campbell, Chad
23. Lee, Richard
24. Rollins, John
25. Clark, Tim
26. Wilson, Mark
27. Snedeker, Brandt
28. Yang, Y.E.
29. Haas, Bill
30. Toms, David
31. Hoffman, Charley
32. Singh, Vijay
33. Gay, Brian
34. Ames, Stephen
35. Gardiner, Scott
36. Tomasulo, Peter
37. Ogilvy, Geoff
38. Karlsson, Robert
39. Potter, Jr., Ted
40. Harman, Brian
41. Park, Jin
42. Points, D.A.
43. Hicks, Justin
44. LeBrun, Steve
45. Love III, Davis
46. Allenby, Robert
47. Kokrak, Jason
48. Mahan, Hunter
49. Watson, Bubba
50. Gillis, Tom


Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Short Game Series with Jim Goergen

Here's a nice Short Game series discussing various trajectories on shots around the green with Jim Goergen.


Monday, February 11, 2013

Pressure Throughout the Swing

Interesting video from the 5 Simple Keys crew discussing pressure vs. weight in the swing and using force plate data to describe what the pressure throughout the swing looks like.


Thursday, February 7, 2013

Quintic Consultancy Scientific Review of Trackman

The Quintic Consultancy group presented their research on the accuracy of Trackman’s launch monitor.

Who is the Quintic Consultancy group?

“Founded in 1997, Quintic Consultancy Limited specialises in Premier Sports Video Analysis Software, Sports Biomechanics & Performance Analysis Consultancy. It is through our extensive consultancy work and constant liaison in the fields of elite sport, physiotherapy, podiatry and education that our three levels of premier sports video & biomechanical analysis software has evolved. It is this unique contact that allows us to produce easy to use, market leading software systems that specialise in 2D Biomechanical Analysis.”

Here’s a table they came up with to show the differences in data output of Trackman vs. the measurements they took with the Hi-Speed Phantom Camera.

Here’s some screen shots differences (click the picture to enlarge it)

Here we have a 3.1% difference in clubhead speed from Trackman (108.7 mph) vs. Phantom (112.1 mph). But, the ball speed for the Trackman is more and that creates a large difference in smash factor of 1.48 (Trackman) vs. 1.40 (Phantom).

The dynamic lofts are different, (10.1 for Trackman vs. 12.7 for Phantom), thus creating a different spin loft (although the attack angles are the same).

Where the big difference is in the club path where Trackman has a +3.4* path (inside-to-out) and Phantom records a +1.0* path.

So, for Trackman we have: +1.2* face angle +3.4* path This would create your classic push draw and the spin axis of -41.8* indicates the ball hooked.

But Phantom camera has: +1.0 face angle +1.0 path This would create a very slight push-straight ball.

Unfortunately, I did not see where Quintic published the actual ball flight in their Abstract.

But, for now I assume the ball hooked but it was due to the ball missing the ‘sweetspot’ and hitting off the toe versus having the clubface closed with relation to the path. Here’s another video.

Again, another difference in clubhead speed and ball speed. This creates a very different smash factor of 1.46 (Trackman) and 1.39 (Phantom). The dynamic lofts are 5-degrees apart. And the attack angles are 2.4-degrees apart, which alters the comparative spin lofts by 2.6-degrees 

More interesting is we see a much different path to face angle.

TRACKMAN +9.6* (open) clubface +5.3* path This would create a block-slice because the face is being recorded as wide open and well open to the path.

PHANTOM +4.1* (open) clubface +4.6* path This would indicate a big push with a draw to it, probably not enough draw to get back to the target. But, Trackman has the spin axis -10.3*, meaning that the ball hooked (negative number means a hook, positive number means it faded). So, the Phantom Camera appears to be more accurate in this scenario.

Here’s what the Quintic conclusions were (click picture to enlarge):

My feeling is that it presents a problem for Trackman in that according to an independent source (Quintic), the readings are very faulty on mis-hits. We have to remember that the ‘sweetspot’ is only about the size of a needle point. It’s not an ‘area’ like most people assume (that’s where the higher concentration of the MOI of the clubhead is located). Even still, some of the problems could be helped by using impact spray or tape and with a knowledge of D-Plane. Also, we don’t know what FlightScope’s new X2 model shows for accuracy. Lastly, Quintic is not ‘anti-sensors or monitors’ as they gave a very favorable review to the SAM Puttlab.

Anyway, you can visit Quintic’s YouTube page at the link below:


Wednesday, February 6, 2013

3Jack Golf's PGA Tour Rundown - Week 6

Here’s how my Waste Management picks fared:

Jason Dufner: 14/1 (MC)
Rickie Fowler: 14/1 (MC)
Bubba Watson: 16/1 (15th)
Keegan Bradley: 33/1 (24th)
Ryan Palmer: 50/1 (5th)
John Huh: 66/1 (MC)
Kyle Stanley: 100/1 (71st)
Roberto Castro: 150/1 (t-16th)
Kevin Streelman: 150/1 (MC)

Value Pick: Brad Fristch: 250/1 (MC)

Here are my picks for AT&T Pebble Beach

Dustin Johnson: 10/1
Brandt Snedeker: 12/1
Padraig Harrington: 25/1
Robert Garrigus: 28/1
Jimmy Walker: 35/1
Ryan Palmer: 35/1
Bryce Molder: 60/1
Bob Estes: 125/1
Kevin Chappell: 150/1

Value Pick: Davis Love III: 150/1

Mickelson was left off the list as he is only 6/1 odds. We have 2 more events to go before I start doing the rankings for the key metrics involved with PRO GOLF SYNOPSIS.

But, here’s the top-50 in Driving Effectiveness so far:

1. Stadler, Kevin
2. Weekley, Boo
3. Palmer, Ryan
4. Glover, Lucas
5. Duke, Ken
6. Thompson, Nicholas
7. Streelman, Kevin
8. Dufner, Jason
9. Maggert, Jeff
10. Pride, Dicky
11. de Jonge, Brendon
12. Cantlay, Patrick
13. Henley, Russell
14. Fisher, Ross
15. Horschel, Billy
16. Campbell, Chad
17. Clark, Tim
18. Rollins, John
19. Wilson, Mark
20. Fritsch, Brad
21. Yang, Y.E.
22. Haas, Bill
23. Toms, David
24. Parnevik, Jesper
25. Hoffman, Charley
26. Merrick, John
27. Gay, Brian
28. Ames, Stephen
29. Park, Jin
30. Hicks, Justin
31. Gardiner, Scott
32. Love III, Davis
33. Allenby, Robert
34. Lee, Richard
35. Lingmerth, David
36. Singh, Vijay
37. Snedeker, Brandt
38. Watson, Bubba
39. Bradley, Keegan
40. Norlander, Henrik
41. Kokrak, Jason
42. Harman, Brian
43. DeLaet, Graham
44. Chappell, Kevin
45. Jones, Matt
46. Claxton, Will
47. Overton, Jeff
48. Van Pelt, Bo
49. Fowler, Rickie
50. Karlsson, Robert


Tuesday, February 5, 2013


I saw these videos and thought they were very inspiring and just flat-out cool. To learn more, visit the Web site at


Monday, February 4, 2013

How To Film Your Golf Swing Video

Here's a video from Joe Mayo and Grant Waite on how they prefer people to film their golf swing

It depends on the camera you have, but I generally try to stand about 10 feet away from the camera and zoom in closely from there.

Another trick that I was shown was you can turn the tripod on the camera sideways and get a 'longer' view of your swing and that will allow you to get closer to filming the swing. If you want to analyze that on your computer at home, you'll need the advanced QuickTime software that allows you to rotate the image because it will be upside down.