MY SYSTEM · STEP 4
Identify Improvements
Does the training really work? Here I show how I build honest proof from pre-tests and post-tests — with standardized setups, σ-tracking, and the P1–P4 putter tests that expose any gut feeling.
Three principles that make every re-test honest
„I think the putt feels better.” That's not a re-test, that's hope. Anyone who really wants to know if the training works needs discipline—and the tool most senior golfers shy away from: the honest number.
Over the past two years, I've built a system from pre/post-test routines that proves or disproves every training hypothesis—no gut feelings, no self-deception, no „I just wasn't feeling it today.”.
Pre or Post. Same conditions. σ before mean. Three rules that make every improvement resilient — or reveal the truth when nothing has happened.
Pre or Post
Without a baseline, any post-test is meaningless. Before I start any training, I take the same test once – and document the result. Only then do I know what number I'm competing against afterward.
Same conditions
Pre on the wet range, post on the dry — comparison broken. Same time of day, same club, same setup, same ground, same number of strokes. Standardization is half the truth.
sigma for mean
The median carry can stay the same—the dispersion is halved. That’s exactly improvement. Anyone who only compares averages misses the most important metric: consistency. Senior golf is won or lost in the dispersion.
What I really measure improvement with
Range-σ-Comparison
25 strikes per club with the R10, measure σL and σB. Driver breakthrough 06/09: σL from 16m to 8.1m, σB from 23m to 8.9m — both values halved. Mechanics success data-based proven.
Wedge 8m-circle
30 putts from 80 m onto the practice green; count how many land within the 8-meter circle around the flag. Baseline May 31: Wedges fly +14–18 % too far — W48 loft test as a result; pre- and post-training results directly comparable.
P1–P4 Putter Tests
Four standardized putter test setups that I have been documenting since May 2026 — P1 (3-circles), P2 (Tour lag 9/12/15m), P3 (Lag 6/9/12m), P4 (Hole-out 15m). Own section below with details.
GiR Tracking
Greens in Regulation over multiple rounds—the most accurate indicator of wedge and iron performance. Wendlohe C, June 12: 11 %. Goal for Week 28: 25 %. Retests occur naturally during the round, not artificially.
Strokes gained difference
SG of a round right before training begins vs. SG of a round 3-4 weeks later, preferably on the same course. The cleanest of all re-tests — and the only one that makes score impact directly visible.
Subjective Scale
Daily form 1–10, concentration 1–10, physical impairment yes/no. Not primary evidence, but context: a post-test on a daily form of 4 says nothing. This scale filters out days when data is even meaningful.
P1 to P4 — my standardized setups
Putting is the biggest scoring lever in senior golf, and at the same time, the most unreliable area for self-assessment. These four tests have been conducted identically since May 2026. This finally gives me comparable putting numbers.
3 distances (3 m, 6 m, 9 m), 10 putts per hole. Ratio = Number of putts holed / 30. Baseline: 38.7 %. Very narrow range of variation—a good indicator of consistency over several weeks.
3 distances (9 m, 12 m, 15 m); success criterion: the putt lands within a 1-meter radius of the hole. Stat as of May 31: 43.3 %. Measures lag distance control, not whether the ball hits the hole—the key defense against 3-putts.
3 distances (6m, 9m, 12m), success criterion: the putt lands between the hole and a putter’s length behind it. Odds as of June 9: 70 %. Classic coach’s test—quick to administer and highly informative.
10 putts from 15 m, counting the average number of putts until a putt is holed. Score 09.06.: 2.5. Confronted with the reality of long lags – no walk in the park.
In five steps to reliable evidence
Before every new training block, at the end of every training block – no training cycle without this framework.
Choose test — matching the hypothesis
If the training hypothesis is „halve PW-σL,” the Wedge-8m-Circle test is the correct tool. For „reduce 3-putt rate,” it's the P3 test. Test and hypothesis must match — otherwise the test measures something else.
Conduct pre-test as a baseline
Perform once before training begins, enter into the master Excel with date, weather, and daily form scale. This number is the benchmark against which each post-test must compete.
See the training through — disciplined according to plan
2–4 weeks with the module plan from step 3. No interim trial attempts („just checking if it's already better”) — this distorts the truth because practice itself shifts values in the short term.
Post-Test — Same setup, same conditions
Same time of day if possible, same range bay, same clubs, same number of strokes. Enter results unvarnished. Only then calculate the pre-post difference — without peeking beforehand.
Evaluate — and decide honestly
Difference greater than 10 % for a small sample (≤ 30 strokes) or greater than 5 % for a large sample (≥ 100 strokes) → genuine improvement, training lever confirmed. Smaller difference → hypothesis rejected, new plan. Both are success — understanding is success.
If the diagnosis is correct, the training works
Two cases from my practice — one with a clear success, one with mixed results.
Sigma bisection confirmed
Hypothesis: When the right shoulder is lowered and the body axis is stabilized, Driver-σL and σB are halved.
Training KW21–23: Mechanic Drills D1 + X-D1-I8 (3x per week)
Post-Test (09.06.2026) 25 Driver strokes, σL 8.1 m, σB 8.9 m, Path -3.6°
Result: Both sigma values halved, path value improved by 4.4°. Hypothesis confirmed — mechanics correction has a measurable effect. This is the kind of proof that makes every additional training block worthwhile.
Improvement, but missed the target slightly.
Hypothesis: If W1 Drill is performed 3 times per week, PW-σL will decrease from 14 m to below 10 m in 4 weeks.
Training KW25: 3x W1 (30 PW from 80m, 8m circle)
Post-Test (06/19/2026): PW sigma L 11 m
Result: σL decreased from 14 to 11 m — an improvement of 21 %, but the target (≤10 m) was narrowly missed. The training lever fundamentally works, but will likely need another 2-3 weeks or a change of loft in addition. No sugarcoating, no „actually it was good” — the number determines the next iteration.
Three tabs in the master Excel
One line per test: Date, test type (P1–P4, σ-Range, Wedge-circle), value, weather, daily form 1–10, notes. All raw data in one place.
Automatic calculation: Hypothesis, pre-value, post-value, absolute difference, % difference, evaluation (success/partial success/rejected). The table that contains every training decision.
Line chart of σL and σB per player over the last 12 weeks. Trends instead of individual values — the most important view for medium-term development.
Template for the Master Excel in the Download Center How to measure.
The circle begins again
Hypothesis confirmed, weakness resolved → return to step 2. The next biggest weakness on the score-impact list becomes the new focus.
Right direction, goal not yet reached → 2–4 week extension with the same module plan. Staying the course is often the right answer.
No improvement, hypothesis refuted → honest analysis. Wrong module? Wrong club? Wrong understanding of mechanics? Realization is success — just no self-deception.
The circle closes — and begins anew
Measure, analyze, train, improve, identify — and with AI as a tool, make the whole process faster. This is the complete method.
German 
English 