Overview
The Players Service (TPS) is located outside of Chicago, IL and specializes in training high level junior golfers. Since our inception in 2010, our training model has produced over 60 junior golfers on scholarship at Division I collegiate golf programs. Our players have also received All-America honors at both the collegiate and AJGA levels and have won over 500 tournaments nationwide.
TPS has been utilizing TrackMan as a training tool for our players over the past 6 years. During that time, we have seen tremendous improvement in our player’s skill level and scoring averages. However, in November 2015, we decided to conduct an experiment with two different training groups, TPS Elite and the traditional golf training model. Both groups of players trained for approximately 200 hours throughout the year. TPS Elite players trained in our indoor training facility utilizing 3 TrackMan hitting bays (pictured above) with premium golf balls. The traditional golf training group trained inside a golf dome during the winter months and on an outdoor practice range during the Chicago golf season utilizing range balls. The traditional training group utilized video camera based instruction while Elite Players utilized
TrackMan doppler technology during their lessons.
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect a TrackMan based training curriculum would have on our players. In order to test this effectively, we would compare this data to a more traditional golf instruction model. The data we would gather would span the 2016 golf season (January 2016-December 2016).
We chose to include 16 players in our case study (8 TPS Elite Players and 8 traditional training golfers) and tracked their progress during the 2016 golf season. Our case study group consisted of 9 players that were committed to Division I collegiate programs and 7 players that were underclassmen who were on the radar of several Division I programs.
Hypothesis:
TPS believes that the TPS Elite Group, who will participate in weekly structured training sessions, utilizing TrackMan Combines and Skills Tests, will show greater improvement at the end of 12 months than the traditional training group, who will participate in training that resembles the “traditional golf instruction” model. The statistical data that we will be focusing on will be:
- Junior Golf Scoreboard (JGS) Scoring Differential*
- Junior Golf Scoreboard (JGS) Ranking Percentile**
- TPS StatTracking Greens In Regulation
JGS Scoring Average Differential
TPS Elite Group
| Player | Jan 2016 | Jan 2017 | +/- | % Improvement |
| Player 1 | 1.43 | -1.74 | -3.2 | 222% |
| Player 2 | 4.59 | 0.17 | -4.4 | 96% |
| Player 3 | 7.84 | 1.73 | -6.11 | 78% |
| Player 4 | 7.97 | 2.13 | -5.84 | 73% |
| Player 5 | 13.68 | 4.48 | -9.2 | 67% |
| Player 6 | 17.60 | 8.18 | -9.4 | 54% |
| Player 7 | 7.76 | 3.86 | -3.9 | 50% |
| Player 8 | 8.85 | 4.68 | -4.17 | 47% |
| Average Improvement | 86% |
TPS Traditional Group
| Player | Jan 2016 | Jan 2017 | +/- | % Improvement |
| Player 9 | 9.32 | 5.4 | -3.92 | 42% |
| Player 10 | 7.06 | 4.18 | -2.88 | 41% |
| Player 11 | 14.33 | 8.81 | -5.52 | 39% |
| Player 12 | 4.44 | 2.86 | -1.58 | 36% |
| Player 13 | 12.6 | 8.84 | -3.76 | 30% |
| Player 14 | 6.07 | 4.62 | -1.45 | 24% |
| Player 15 | 10.93 | 8.7 | -2.23 | 20% |
| Player 16 | 15 | 12.13 | -2.87 | 19% |
| Average Improvement | 31% |
JGS Ranking Percentile
TPS Elite Group
| Player | 2016 Percentile Rank | 2017 Percentile Rank | +/- | % Improvement |
| Player 1 | 84% | 97% | 13% | 15% |
| Player 2 | 67% | 91% | 24% | 36% |
| Player 3 | 51% | 86% | 35% | 69% |
| Player 4 | 43% | 77% | 34% | 79% |
| Player 5 | 19% | 58% | 39% | 205% |
| Player 6 | 6% | 37% | 31% | 517% |
| Player 7 | 51% | 71% | 20% | 40% |
| Player 8 | 41% | 59% | 18% | 44% |
| Average Improvement | 126% |
TPS Traditional Group
| Player | 2016 Percentile Rank | 2017 Percentile Rank | +/- | % Improvement |
| Player 9 | 26% | 56% | 30% | 115% |
| Player 10 | 56% | 73% | 17% | 30% |
| Player 11 | 17% | 34% | 17% | 100% |
| Player 12 | 63% | 69% | 6% | 10% |
| Player 13 | 23% | 35% | 12% | 52% |
| Player 14 | 55% | 68% | 13% | 24% |
| Player 15 | 31% | 34% | 3% | 10% |
| Player 16 | 17% | 24% | 7% | 41% |
| Average Improvement | 48% |
Greens In Regulation
TPS Elite Group
| Player | Jan 2016 | Jan 2017 | +/- | % Improvement |
| Player 1 | 9.9 | 13.1 | 3.2 | 32% |
| Player 2 | 9.7 | 12.8 | 3.1 | 32% |
| Player 3 | 7.6 | 11.7 | 4.1 | 54% |
| Player 4 | 6.9 | 11.1 | 4.2 | 61% |
| Player 5 | 6.6 | 9.1 | 2.5 | 38% |
| Player 6 | 5.2 | 9.7 | 4.5 | 87% |
| Player 7 | 8.9 | 12.3 | 3.4 | 38% |
| Player 8 | 6.3 | 10.1 | 3.8 | 60% |
| Average Improvement | 50% |
TPS Traditional Group
| Player | Jan 2016 | Jan 2017 | +/- | % Improvement |
| Player 9 | 6.4 | 8.3 | 1.9 | 30% |
| Player 10 | 7.4 | 9.5 | 2.1 | 28% |
| Player 11 | 4.2 | 6.3 | 2.1 | 50% |
| Player 12 | 10.3 | 11.4 | 1.1 | 11% |
| Player 13 | 9.1 | 9.8 | 0.7 | 8% |
| Player 14 | 8.5 | 9.6 | 1.1 | 13% |
| Player 15 | 5.7 | 7.1 | 1.4 | 25% |
| Player 16 | 3.6 | 5.0 | 1.4 | 38% |
| Average Improvement | 25% |
Conclusion
The data shows there was a significant improvement in both the TPS Elite and traditional training group over the course of a 12 month training cycle. The TPS hypothesis of the Elite players improving at a greater rate then the traditional training group was correct. The Elite players that trained on TrackMan throughout the year improved their Scoring Average Differential by 55% more, their Junior Golf Scoreboard Ranking by 78% more, and their Greens-In-Regulation by 25% more then the traditional training group who participated in the “traditional golf instruction” model utilizing video based lessons and practice range training sessions.
A high level of practice intensity is a key component in player development. TPS believes that since there is real-time feedback for every shot struck while training on TrackMan, players are forced to maintain a high level of focus throughout the duration of their training session. The style of training that TPS Elite players participated in helped them achieve an optimal training state for a 12 month period. Also, by utilizing the proximity to the hole data that is generated on the TrackMan Skills Tests, the TPS Elite players were able to isolate deficiencies and weak areas (free from player or instructor bias since we are looking at statistical data).
Deficiencies in the traditional training group golf games were identified by the player (without the concrete, statistical data that TrackMan supplies) on a weekly basis, and relayed to a their instructor to explain what they needed to work on during their golf lesson (traditional golf instruction model).
While both of these training curriculums produced significant improvements, the TPS Elite model of utilizing TrackMan throughout the year, allowed our students to improve at a quicker rate then the traditional training model.
| Scoring Average Differential Improvement | Junior Golf Scoreboard Ranking Improvement | Greens-In-Regulation Improvement | ||
| TPS Elite | 86% | 126% | 50% | |
| TPS Traditional | 31% | 48% | 25% |
*Junior Golf Scoreboard (JGS) provided TPS the ranking information for each player in our study. JGS is responsible for ranking junior golfers all across the United States and is the official ranking system that is used by collegiate golf coaches in their recruiting process. The rankings are made up of 3 different criteria as explained on juniorgolfscoreboard.com
Individual Scoring:
For the 75 % of the player’s lowest scoring differentials, this is simply the average difference of their score compared to the USGA rating of the courses they played in their tournaments. In other words, how well does this player score when playing in tournaments. This criteria counts for 65% of a player’s ranking calculation.
Strength of Field:
The number displayed here is the result of our proprietary ranking formula that determines a score for all the tournaments played by this individual. Again, simply put, a lower number means they played against stronger players and the closer two players’ strength numbers are, the more similar the competitiveness of their tournaments. This criteria counts for 25% of a player’s ranking calculation.
Strength of Finish:
Finishes count 10% in the ranking computation and their value is computed based on the number of players in the field and the strength of tournament. Results in the rankings table are displayed as follows; If you win an overall combined age group competition or if you win an age group not part of an overall competition, you get credit for a win. (Winning an age group that is part of an overall competition does not qualify for a win). If there are 10 or more players who finish in your age group and you finish 2nd thru 5th for that tournament, you receive credit in the Top 5 column. If there are 20 or more players who finish in your age group and you finish 6th thru 10th for that tournament, you receive credit in the Top 10 column. You only receive one credit in these columns per tournament played in. (These finish credits are different than what you see on the professional tours due to the fluctuating field sizes in junior golf.)
**Player rankings were taken as of January 1, 2016 and January, 1 2017 in order compare the improvement curves of the different training curriculums over the course of a 12 month period. The percentile rank was calculated by using the following equation… 100 – {(player’s class ranking/total players in class) x 100}. This percentile ranking tell us how high each player is ranked within their graduating class. For this data table, the higher the percentile ranking the higher the player is ranked.
Recent Comments