Dynamic Handicap Scoring (beta) Feedback

[SkyTrak_Seth]

Hi All,

With the roll-out of the new Skills Assessment, I want to begin to gather some feedback on the beta Dynamic Handicap scoring system. The most important thing here is to take your time and play through the Skills Assessment a lot before offering feedback. Be honest and realistic - not looking for, "I did the assessment once and I got a 19 handicap and I'm a scratch in real life. This sucks!".

A few things to keep in mind:

- We score every single shot, so you lose your ability to recover as IRL. We do offer the ability to delete shots, but unless it's a total shank (we all have them from time to time), then I'd advise against doing this as it's not a true assessment of your game.

- The closer the pin, the scoring will seem more aggressive - this is because (similar to above) you can't rely on great putting skills to save you. Where we are looking at yards differentiating scoring increments at long distances, chipping may be mere inches that affect the score. A 1 handicap will sink a 10 foot putt all day long, but that's more a reflection of the putt, not necessarily the shot prior.

- I will look to expand this assessment for fairways and possibly even putting if the demand is there.

[fiestabuckeye]

I love it, BUT think the scoring is ridiculously penal. For instance, I'm a +2 handicap that scored a 3.7 handicap on my last assessment and here's where my proximity from each range would rank on the PGA Tour.

250 yards = 72.1 feet which was a 11.3 handicap = 72 feet is #91 on tour
180 yards = 18.0 feet which was a +0.2 handicap = 18 feet is #1 on tour (and 5 foot better than #10 Phil Mickelson)
160 yards = 23.1 feet which was a 2.5 handicap = 23.1 feet is #41 on tour
90 yards = 17.8 feet which was a 5.7 handicap = 17.8 feet is #86 on tour
60 yards = 8.8 feet which was a 3.7 handicap = 8.8 feet is #29 on tour
etc
etc
etc

So, while I love the assessment and actually enjoy that it grades you tough, the scoring is not realistic. For example, you essentially need a 5% margin of error to score at a 0 handicap level on wedge shots with is nutty considering the margin on the PGA Tour is 7-8%. As a +2 handicap, I would literally need to hit the ball better than 75+% of the PGA Tour for me to score at my handicap level. That's not going to happen very often.

THAT SAID, I enjoy the challenge. It forces me to grind over each and every shot and it creates level of pressure that you just don't see in a normal practice session. That alone makes it worth every penny I spent on the SkyTrak.

[Wyzyguy]

I just judge my #'s as benchmarks and do not directly tie them to my HC... It is fun to see a +4 from time to time. but seeing a 19 isn't fun. I have save lots of pdfs and have seen how I have improved in certain areas. I love it as well.

[goatbarn]

Maybe they think the pros would be much better in a controlled test environment, thus making the comparison to their numbers during tournaments not comparable.

Either way I wish TGC had a combine or something, that seems very useful.

[MainStGolf]

I redid mine the other day for the first time in a while with just my irons. I started at 180 and went down 10 yards for a total of 10 sessions. I ended up with a 6.7 I believe. I was VERY happy. Then I promptly went out IRL two days later and it looked like I had not hit a club in years :-). So is golf.

First two assessments were in the 14s, but also included driver and fairway woods.

[James James]

I have now studied this in more detail with similar findings to fiestabuckeye

https://exploringimpact.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/skytrak-skills-assessment-vs-trackman.html

[bennyg211]

Great analysis work, reminds me of my days as a stress engineer looking at test data. Evidence that open comms between customer and manufacturer ultimately wins out. Great to see that SkyTrak_Seth embrace it and respond to it. It's happened time and again. Forum win.

[SkyTrak_Seth]

Wow, man. You outdid yourself Thank you for the great write-up. I will take a more in-depth look and circulate internally.

[SomaPLR]

I would agree with fiestabuckeye, if you are + it is very very hard to get close to your handicap - it's damn near impossible to get to 1-2 rating. I have always done the 5 shots (and never taken a best of 3 approach) and some of the ratings I've received are really fonky. The lowest I've ever received on a combine at this point is a 3.1

The 250 yard shot is amazingly penal. I had an average of 51 ft before and it gave me a 6 handicap. Those numbers would have put me top 50 on tour.

Same thing on the 60 yard shot - I had an average of 11 ft and it rated me a 6 hdcp again. That puts the numbers in the top 60 in the world.

Listen I know we aren't pros, and we should be shooting lower than our cap due to us be "grooved in" on the range - It's just really bonkers.

I'd love to know how you came up with those handicap ratings...

With that said....

I friggin LOVE the challenges. I've learned the hdcp ratings is just a gauge for improvement and not to get too hung up on the number.

I'd pay big big dollars to anyone that could get to a 1 hdcp on the test....I'm pretty sure it's impossible. I've had some sick sessions and haven't sniffed it.

[bknoxville]

Love everything about it! The fact that everything is 'selectable' is the key for every level of player being able to enjoy and benefit from using it.

Being kind of a 'range rat', I find myself using SA almost exclusively.

My current routine is hitting five five balls from each of five distances (60-70-80-90-100 yards) for a total of 25 shots (all scored)

I don't know that I will ever get the score I want for the routine, but for me, that is the challenge that is so compelling.

Well done!

brian

[jpb]

I've worked through 5 Skills Assessments sessions so far and love seeing the shot dispersion data to help identify what areas need improvement. I'll agree with other commenters that the challenge of beating your best Dynamic Handicap is really compelling and keeps you coming back for more. That said, as others have mentioned and James James showed in his fantastic analysis, the Dynamic Handicap is harsh for low handicappers.

Also, if I'm not mistaken the 250 yard shot is scored based upon closeness to the pin. I'd suggest that it would be better to take the TrackMan Combine approach and replace the 250 yard shot with a "Drive" shot that's scored based on distance and distance from the center line. So a longer drive on the center line should give you a better Dynamic Handicap than a drive that's in the hole at 250 yards.

[SkyTrak_Seth]

We have something in mind for driver (and other clubs). The skills assessment is just a start!

[Doods]

Hi all, I'm new to the forum but have been using ST for some time now.

For me, continued investment of the Skills Performance feature should be the top priority at ST. I have considered the investment in Trackman just for the combine feature because it is such a great way to improve your real game in a simulator environment. All in all, this feature can make you a better golfer and makes it worth the Skytrak investment and should be the focus on software investment moving forward because of its importance in developing one's game.

My feedback:

1) Perhaps this is there already, but is there a way to have the scoring based on just ballflight? I see in settings there is a selection to do this, but when my ball hits the green and rolls off, it calls it a "Miss", and I haven't found anywhere which says explicitly the scoring just takes into account ballflight distance in the Dynamic Handicap when in this mode. I often don't trust the spin coming off my mat, and think ballflight option for scoring would yield more repeatable results on the course.

2) There absolutely needs to be a way to save a "preset" order of distances and clubs being used. I don't want to update the default every time I go into SA.

3) I agree with the others about the algorithm needing to be "tuned" in the single digit handicap range that makes it not so hard.

4) Agreed about driver comment from jpb

Keep up the good work ST,

[SkyTrak_Seth]

Thank you for the great feedback!