An Analysis of Brian Harman's Putts Holed at the 2023 Open Championship

Phenomenal display of golf by Brian Harman winning the Open Championship. He outplayed everyone and really is a fantastic winner.

His putting display has been getting many comments and figures such as the number of putts he holed - 58 - under 10 feet all week and the fact that he missed only one putt under 10 feet are being highlighted.

But let's delve into the numbers a little deeper to see how impressive his putting was. The chart in the photo is the length of the putts he holed on every hole of the Championship.

 

 

At the bottom of the chart is a breakdown of the putts:

0-4 feet - in essence tap ins for professional golfers on greens as good as they were in Liverpool,
4-6 feet - high probability of holing,
6-10 feet - approximately 8 feet is the 50% probability of holing on tour, so this is the could miss, could hole range,
10-20 feet - a chance of holing but not that often and little chance of 3 putting
Outside 20 feet - rarely hole, mainly looking to get the pace right

42 putts holed from inside 4 feet, the vast majority 42/58 or 72% of the putts he holed under 10 feet were in essence tap ins.

Only 5 putts holed from 4-6 feet, not that many from this range in 72 holes but still impressive none were missed.

12 putts from 13 holed from 6-10 feet, about 50% of putts are holed from 8 feet on the PGA Tour, so this is the most impressive putting stat of the week. He holed the first 10 of these putts he had, the one he missed was the 11th which was the 13th hole in the last round where he missed from 6 foot 11 inches and holed two more after including the beautiful par save from 7 foot 7 inches on the 72nd hole.

6 putts holed from 10-20 feet in the 72 holes, not much but typical enough for a good putter. They don't hole every putt they look at.

6 putts holed from outside 20 feet in 72 holes, doesn't seem like much, many golfers think for a good score you must hole a whole pile of long putts but the golfers on tour do well to hole one putt outside of 20 feet per round so Brian's 6 holed putts is actually a very good return.

The impressive putting stat for Brian Harman was the conversion of 12 out 13 putts from 6 to 10 feet, if that conversion rate was closer to 50%, his final score might be 8 or 9 under but that's still the winning score, so the overall strength of his game had him winning still, the putting just made it even more impressive. Also the three longish putts in a row of 19 feet 9 inches, 25 feet 5 inches and 17 feet 2 inches on holes 2,3 and 4 in the second round pushed him to the top of the leaderboard and a lead he didn't relinquish after. This little run was very impressive.

How does this help your game and practice? Practice short, under 10 feet, and long putts, outside 20 feet, only, long putts for pace and short putts to hole out. There's little need to practice from 10-20 feet, you're not holing and you're not 3 putting, so learning little from this type of practice.

New Versus Used Golf Balls

New Versus Used Golf Balls

Recently we saw results of a test of New versus Scuffed Golf Balls, where the new golf ball outperformed the scuffed golf ball by 32.5 yards in a distance test with a driver. 

Here at Drive Golf Performance, when fitting for golf clubs, we use a combination of new and used golf balls, some of the golf balls have scuffs on them but we really haven't noticed any drop off in the performance of used/scuffed golf balls over the new ones.

Normally we tell golfers to use a golf ball until they lose it, that it would take 9 or 10 rounds of golf before the ball looks like it might lose any performance.

We decided to do our own test on golf balls and compared 12 used golf balls versus 12 new golf balls.

 

 

Used Pro V1

 

New Pro V1

We took 12 new Titleist Pro V1 out of a box and gathered up 12 used ones, both are pictured above, the wear and scuffs are pretty clear on the used golf balls. Both are the same model Pro V1 and the new balls were the yellow version.

The test was done on a good early June evening with temperatures around 20 Celsius and very little wind. The same diver was used to compare the golf balls, a Titleist TSR3 with 10.0 degrees of loft and a Fujikura Ventus shaft.

12 drives were hit with each type of ball and the results were recorded with a Trackman IV launch monitor. Each type of ball was hit three times and then alternated to the next one until 12 shots were hit with each.

The main performance numbers that we looked are were club head speed, ball speed, carry, total distance, accuracy, launch angle, peak height and spin rates. Ultimately the main ones to be interested in are ball speed, carry, total distance and accuracy.

 

Results

 

Dispersion of the Shots

 

Golf Ball	Club Speed MPH	Ball Speed MPH	Carry Yards	Total Distance Yards
New	102.7	152.7	246.5	270.5
Used	102.5	151.6	248.1	272.2
	Dispersion Feet	Launch Angle	Spin Rate	Height Feet
New	23.22	12.9	2653	94
Used	32.96	12.3	2755	93

We can see from the results that both new and used balls gave very similar results in ball speed, carry, total distance, launch angle, spin rates and height. 

There was a difference in accuracy. The accuracy measurement was calculated from the average left or right the balls were from the target. The used balls were more accurate than the new balls, nearly 10 feet more accurate. You'd have to say this is significant enough.

Analysis and Conclusion

From this test we can say that used balls in it had no drop off in performance in comparison to new balls. This test would strongly suggest that you can use a Titleist ball until you lose it. If anything the used balls were better than the new balls with the difference in accuracy.

Why would the used balls be better? Did the golfer just randomly hit better shots with the used balls? It's a possibility but having a sequence where not all the same type of balls were hit in a row would mitigate against this a little. Hitting more balls would give better data but 12 is similar to the number of drivers a golfer hits in a round so is a reasonable data set.

Did some of the scuff marks make the used balls fly better? Again it's a slight but unlikely possibility given how much research golf ball manufacturers do on golf ball dimple patterns, they would have discovered this already and be selling balls with scuff marks on them.

There is another possibility, the new balls were the yellow version of the Titleist Pro V1 and the golfer reacted differently to the yellow ball in comparison to the used balls which were white. It's a possibility but not a certainty. It would seem another test is needed to compare the white version to the yellow version.

Comments and questions are always welcome.

Iron Shafts: Graphite Versus Steel, Fujikura Axiom v Dynamic Gold

 

 Graphite Shafts versus Steel Shafts in Irons

Predominantly better players in golf use steel shafts in their irons. Typically steel shafts would be seen as more accurate than graphite. Graphite shafts have the reputation of being lighter than steel and hence many golfers think they are for the slower speed players to gain more speed and height.

Graphite shafts also absorb the vibrations from hitting the ball and turf better than steel and can give golfers who have hand, arm and shoulders issues less stress in these areas. 

What if there was a graphite shaft that was as accurate as steel? All the benefits of less stress on the body with great accuracy.

Fujikura launched the Axiom iron shaft this year, which has the same Velocore technology as their extremely successful Ventus wood shaft.

Recently we tested the Fujikura Axiom 125 X shaft against the very popular and classical True Temper Dynamic Gold S300 shaft as well as the DG120 S300 shaft.

 

 

The test was done on a nice May day with temperatures around 16 degrees with a slight wind against. The same head was used in all three shafts, a Mizuno MP 18 SC 6 iron. All three shafts were the same playing length of 37.5 inches.

12 shots were hit with each club using Titleist Pro V1 golf balls and the results were recorded with a Trackman IV launch monitor. Each shaft was hit three times and then alternated to the next one.

The main performance numbers that we looked are were club head speed, ball speed, carry, total distance, accuracy, launch angle, peak height and spin rates. Ultimately the main ones to be interested in are ball speed, carry, total distance and accuracy

 

 

 

 The dispersion of the shafts are above.

Results

 

Shaft	Clubhead Speed(mph)	Ball Speed	Launch Angle	Spin Rate	Carry (yards)	Total Distance	Height (feet)	Distance from target (ft)
Axiom	84.4	114	16.2	6050	153.9	163.8	80	11.19
DG	83.4	114.6	15.8	6138	153.5	162.9	80	20.27
DG120	83.6	113.7	17	5972	153.5	162.9	82	14.05

 

We can see from the results that the shafts give quite similar results, similar club head speeds, ball speeds, launch angles, spin rates, carry, total distance and height. There is a little more difference in the accuracy. The accuracy measurement is how far left or right the ball ended up from the target line. The DG120 shaft was 6 feet more accurate than the DG and the Axiom was 3 feet more accurate than the DG120 and 9 feet more accurate than the DG.

Analysis and Conclusion

For this golfer we can say that the graphite Fujikura Axiom was more accurate than the steel Dynamic Gold and Dynamic Gold 120. The Axiom had a very impressive accuracy measure of an average of 11.19 feet left or right from the target. Fujikura have made a great iron shaft which gives phenomenal accuracy with the feel and shock absorption that graphite grants.

Should you play Axiom? You definitely should test them and see how they compare to your own shafts. They are available in 75 R2, R & S, 105 S & X and 125 X in Long, Mid and Short irons. With such a wide variety there will be one to suit your game.

 

Any questions and comments are welcome.  

 

 

What a World Tour Might Look Like.

 

A World Golf Tour

 

 

What could professional golf look like?

 

With the recent events of potential mergers and purchases of the PGA Tour and DP/European Tour, the opportunity now arises to re-imagine a worldwide golf tour.

 

The first question is what is the purpose of professional golf? There is the 4 majors, which are championships looking to find who the best player is, while the rest of professional golf is essentially entertainment looking to captivate, enthrall and delight fans and golfers.

 

What do the golf fans and viewers want? They want to see the best players in the world playing against each other as well as local underdogs battling out against the giants of the game.

 

How do we get this to happen? We look at how often the best players play, what's the optimal number of events for them to play in, create an off season, play no more than 2-3 weeks in a row and have 1-2 weeks off between events. Having less events creates a scarcity factor generating more interest in the events that do happen. Have worldwide events, not just stuck in one country and have the ability to climb the ladder to get into the World Tour.

 

I'd like to see 24 events, 4 majors and 20 World Tour Events, taking place in the Americas, Europe, Middle East/Africa and Australasia. Base the 20 World events on National Opens and well established events. I'd have 9 events in the Americas, such as the LA Open, Western Open, Texas Open, Mexican Open, Canadian Open, Brazilian Open etc, 5 events in Europe, Scottish Open, French Open, Spanish Open etc, 3 events in Middle East/Africa, Dubai Open, South African Open etc and 3 events in Australasia, Japan Open, Australian Open etc. The events would rotate from country to country from year to year, so the Argentinian Open would be a world tour event one year and the Brazilian Open the next.

 

What would the fields of these events comprise of? I'd have the top 100 in the world from the previous year contracted to the World Tour to guarantee that the best players are playing in all events, contracts ranging from $100,000 to $500,000 per event ($2 million to $10 million per year) depending on the world ranking and prize money would be earned on top of the contracts.

 

The World Events would have fields of 156, Top 100 in the world from the previous year, 10 of the highest in the current rankings not already eligible, 40 from the local tour where the event is on and 6 Monday qualifying spots every week. Cut to 60 and ties after 2 rounds. Every week would have great stories to tell, from the best players in the world fighting it out down the back nine to the local pro getting through the Monday qualifying and more. 

 

Notice there would be no sponsor exemptions, every one is in by merit. Also, no limited field events and no no cut events.

 

Underneath the World Tour would be three more divisions of professional tours, division one would be the PGA Tour, European Tour, Asian Tour, division two would be the Korn Ferry Tour, Challenge Tour, Sunshine Tour, Japan Tour, Australian Tour etc, and division three would be a selection of mini tours from around the world.

 

From division one the players would look to gain ranking points to get into the top 100, as well as get to play in the world tour events in their region, division two tours would have 20-30 golfers getting promotion to division one tours each year and division three tours would have 10 golfers getting promoted from each tour to division 2 tours. 

 

Each division one and two tour would have 30 events, no over exposure of these tours too and division 3 tours would have 20 events which are funded properly. A division 3 tour would have $10 million funding, ie 20 events of $500,000 per event, not the current situation where all mini tour players are essentially broke and unable to earn any sort of living while playing on them.

 

That is what I would do if I was commissioner of a potential World Tour.

 

What would you do?