Best Driver of 2019 | Full Article _HERE_ | Discussion Thread _HERE_

3W vs Driver off the tee

13468949

Comments

  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members Posts: 3,487 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jun 30, 2017 #152


    Are some shorter hitters more "accurate" (not really in term of their directional angle) as a function of being short? Sure. But they can score that way. Jim Furyk sure has made a lot of $$$ with his "no more accurate" swing.




    Me: Wanna buy my keep away elephants rock?

    You: Sure, if it works. Does it work?

    Me: You don't see any elephants around here, do you?



    Furyk is an incredible player, but its silly to argue that because he is good and short you should strive to be short or be content with it. Horschel has also won a ton of $$, so I assume you break clubs constantly during play. Tiger won a whole lot more money being long and wild. I'd be willing to bet that if we actually did an analysis of driving distance to career tour earnings the short guys would lose by quite a bit.
    Ping g30 driver, various shafts
    Adams tight lies 3 wood
    rest is up for debate
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members Posts: 3,487 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jun 30, 2017 #153
    Ri_Redneck wrote:

    Ri_Redneck wrote:


    tsecor wrote:



    It's comparable by percent deviation, as has been discussed throughout this thread. You can't discuss distance and accuracy independently. The longer you hit the more inaccurate you get if accuracy is measured by how many fairways you hit. Since golfers miss in degrees, what actually matters is accuracy adjusted for distance. In the example above the pitching wedge is a significantly less accurate shot even though it looks more accurate.
    at this point, I think you are joking with everyone......nobody cares about "degrees of miss".....its golf, not geometry. Are you in the fairway or not....when you hit the driver, does it hook/slice and put you in a bad spot vs the 3 wood which is much easier to control for a large number of players....are you in the fairway with your 3 wood? nobody cares about that other stuff......in your world, you hit a driver 320 into the rough behind a tree and somehow you are in a better spot than the guy who hits a 3 wood in the center of the fairway but has "only" hit it 280. because the % of deviation is lower with the driver, he has been more accurate.....its hilarious.




    Anyone who uses a trackman cares a whole lot about degrees of miss. Its what your face angle and path combine to produce at impact.



    We don't use "are you in the fairway or not" *when evaluating changes to our bags* because its dependent on: 1. you making the correct choice in club and 2. the course you are playing on.



    If you happen to go play a course with super-tight fairways and then go play a course with super-wide fairways your accuracy doesn't change. You are still the same golfer. In order to accurately evaluate improvements to your swing or changes to your equipment, you have to factor out other variables. In this context, the two variables you have to factor out are the course you are playing ("hitting the fairway" is much harder some places than others) and what club you pull (your swing change might have made you significantly more accurate, but you might still need work on course management).



    Obviously I don't think you are better off behind a tree. But I think there is a chance that the 320 golfer is more accurate than the 280 golfer and just happened to hit it to a bad spot on that particular hole.



    In other words, an inaccurate result doesn't mean an inaccurate swing.



    The only way to evaluate your actual accuracy (whether to evaluate swing changes or equipment changes) is the percent you miss your target line as a proportion of how far the ball traveled. If you don't at least take a brief look at it, your equipment change could be hurting you and you just happen to be playing a course that's not tight. Or your equipment change could have helped you a ton, but you just happen to be playing a tight course the first time you take it out. "Fairway" means a lot to your score in the short-term, but almost nothing to evaluating your swing or equipment. You have to factor out the course your playing and your course management to get a true sense of how accurate your swing and equipment are. The best metric for this is percent deviation.



    EDIT:

    I don't know why you are so rude in these posts. I don't think I've been anything but polite to you in (trying to) explain this.




    Okay, I just got back from my daily 100 ball lunch break. I made a point of hitting 15 balls each with the driver (250 carry), 3w (235 carry) and 7w (210 carry). I made careful note of my dispersion with each club. Using Google Earth, my driver dispersion was 35 yds, 3w was 34 yds and 7w was 30 yds. That was widest to widest. Of the shots close to center (15' either side) out of the 15: Driver 9, 3w 10 and 7w 12. So, yes my dispersion was very similar with each club, but my percentage of shots close to line was higher with the higher lofted (read shorter) club. I will do my best to apply that to by clubbing decisions on my post-work 9 today.



    BT






    Followup:



    Played 9 at a little track near my office after work today. It maxes about at approximately 5600 yds, fairways are cut to 20 yd width, greens avg 65' wide/deep and treeline to treeline is 35 - 40 yds. What I consider a tight course with small greens. The rough is currently heavy due to higher than normal rainfall. I know the course fairly well because I play a quick 9 there regularly since it is literally right by my office. Normally, I rarely hit driver on anything but the par 5s and a couple of par 4s on the front that are a bit wider. The wind was around 15 mph from the southwest. I played the back 9 and hit driver on 14, 16, 17 & 18.



    #14. 341 (tailwind) with a pond on the right from 200 to 240. Typically I hit my 7w to take the pond out of play and leave a full club to the green. General score is par/birdie. Hit driver (a bit thin) to 90 yds dead center. 3/4 GW to 12' and made birdie.



    #16. 416 (headwind) with only trees to cause problems. One of the par 4s I sometimes hit driver on because it opens up in the landing area. General score is par. Since I was into the wind, I hit a low driver with a dab of fade to 180. The wind magnified the fade and I ended up under a tree in the rough. Fortunately, I had a small opening where I could play a easy 7w which landed pin high and rolled to the back fringe. Chip and putt to par.



    #17 331 (tailwind) with trees as only obstruction. One of the few par 4s with a larger landing area for driver. However, there is a medium sized (40' tall and trimmed to 6.5' above the ground) protecting the right side of the green. Typically, I play 7w to PW distance. Normal score par/birdie. Hit driver with a bit more fade than I wanted ( it happens) to 85 in right rough (light) where green was completely obstructed by tree. Had a smooth SW to hopefully carry tree and land on back of green. Thought I hit it perfect, but the shot caught the top of the tree, dropped down through it to light rough underneath. Had a short-side bump & run under limbs through thicker rough near the edge of the green. Rollout took the ball to the center of the green leaving me about a 15' left to right breaker. missed by a few inches for a bogey.



    #18 352 (headwind) with thick trees right and left to 240, opens up on left after that. Trees to trees is 30 yds. Typically I hit a smooth 3w to around 110 for a GW shot to the green. Normal score par. Playing driver, I had to keep the ball as straight as possible. My had a bit of fade which the wind magnified and the ball hit on the right edge of the fairway and rolled into the edge of the trees. I found the ball resting among several exposed roots with the green completely blocked by a tree. Punched out to the fairway and then played a PW to 15' and 2 putted for bogey.



    Now, it's entirely possible that I could have scored the same playing my normal clubs for those holes, But odds are, I wouldn't have had the tree issues at least on 17 and 18. IMHO, the jury is still out on the "distance is king argument.



    BT




    Interesting. Let me ask you this - those trees on 17 and 18, do you consider them stroke-costing hazards? In other words, if you hit behind that tree on 17 100 times, would you make par 51 times? How about on 18? Its also possible you bogey from the fairway too, so its basically a game of percent.



    Nobody is arguing distance is king. The argument is distance is king *as long as no stroke-costing hazards are brought into play*. What is a stroke-costing hazard is different player-to-player. I'd feel pretty good about clearing a tree with a wedge so 17 sounds fine. It sounds like 18 you were just dead, and that might be a stroke-costing hazard. It sounds like on 17 its a risk/reward hole and today you got the short end.



    Distance is king doesn't mean pound driver on every hole. It means distance is king provided that distance doesn't bring a stroke-costing issue into play. This also involves knowing your typical miss etc... which it sounds like you do.



    Last question: do you have a favorite short game shot? The distance-is-king school advocates trying to develop something like a .7 strokes short game shot so you don't have to hit the green to have a similar chance at a par as a 2 putt. The concept of GIR has been replaced by nGIR (near green in regulation) which basically means you get to a spot around the green where your expected number of strokes down is the same as a two putt from 40 feet. Just curious.



    Thank you for sharing, I love hearing about people putting stuff into practice like this.
    Ping g30 driver, various shafts
    Adams tight lies 3 wood
    rest is up for debate
  • jslane57jslane57 Members Posts: 3,929 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jun 30, 2017 #154
    Skimming the first 6 pages of this thread I'm seeing a few nice drawings, a few assumptions, and deference of opinion. What I'm not seeing is why. Why is the 3-wood more accurate for many over a driver? No, it is not the shorter shaft or the added loft. It is the way it is hit. A 3-wood is teed low to the ground and moved back in the stance in comparison to a large driver. Hitting down through shot does allow for added control and as a result, added accuracy. Tee that 3-wood up 2.5 inches and hit up into the ball, then your same line, shorter shot diagram works...
  • JeffreySpicoliJeffreySpicoli Members Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Scott Fawcett has great info on deciding to use driver. See 13:45 and 21:00 in below video. (Entire video is well worth it.)





  • morrisminormorrisminor Come back zinc! Come back! Members Posts: 197 ✭✭✭
    I read the title of this thread and knew I had to check out the inevitable "pinestreet (and a coupe of others) against the world" direction it would take!



    As a recent convert to the 'couple of others' camp I would implore any naysayers to strive for that lightbulb moment, either from one of PSG's posts or from reading this https://pdfs.semanti...10e1a4ff03d.pdf. I know it may seem like rigid analytical data driven stuff but I actually found it quite freeing, as i discovered that I had been putting myself under unrealistic pressure (like expecting to hit it much closer to the hole from 100-175yds than the tour average).
    Ping Rapture 10.5* Aldila NV Protopype 65X
    Taylormade Burner Superfast 3w TT Bimatrix X
    Callaway Steelhead Plus 5w TT Bimatrix X
    Mizuno MX-300 4i DG X100
    Mizuno MP-57 5-PW DG X100
    Mizuno MP T11 52* & 58* DG Wedge
    Yes! Pippi 12
  • tsecortsecor Loading........ Members Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.
  • jslane57jslane57 Members Posts: 3,929 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    tsecor wrote:


    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.
    I don't think you change your driver fitting at all, after all, you have a 3-wood:) You should decide how you want to hit your driver before being fit though. Will you continue hitting up through the ball, getting out of position, and fanning it all over the golf course? Or try to hit it a little more level, keeping your swing solid and in tact, and trying to hit a spot in the fairway? The club really isn't the issue, it is how we swing it...
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,023 ✭✭
    tsecor wrote:


    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.




    Hi and apologies if you posted this earlier in the thread or elsewhere, but what are your driver and 3w specs now? Do you know your angle of attack with driver vs. 3w?



    As jslane may have alluded to above, a lot of players hit up on driver (positive angle of attack) vs the downward blow of a 3w. Apologies if I'm covering ground you already know. Generally, a downward AoA will produce more spin and can stabilize ball flight.



    A lot of players who have a downward AoA with driver will play a driver with more loft to negate the AoA, but this increases spin even more and reduces distance.



    I think PSG has some sort of Frankenwood he cooked up, but there are off-the-shelf mini drivers and high lofted drivers that would be great for those who want a little more directional control.



    As for length, I think the consensus around here has been that going with a 44.5 or even 43.5 in driver shaft doesn't affect distance much if at all.



    Hireko offers the Acer Thriver, which is 10-20 grams heavier than traditional driver heads to accommodate a shorter shaft. It comes in 12* loft.

    http://www.hirekogolf.com/golf-components/clubheads/golf-drivers/acer-xv-ultimate-thriver-clubhead.html



    A side benefit of the heavier head is a theoretical increase in smash factor.

    "Increasing the clubhead mass also increases the smash factor, but not by much at all. A 10% increase in clubhead mass results in only a 1.7% increase in smash factor. (Again, we are using a driver for the model club, with a loft of 10º.)"

    https://www.tutelman.com/golf/ballflight/smashfactor.php



    For someone with a smash of only 1.4 and 90mph SS, that would be a gain of 2.1mph ball speed, or 2-5 more yards. Not insignificant.



    I play my F7 at 44.5 and stock weight and while my center strikes aren't any better, there are way fewer disaster misses than when I had my 46.25 inch 09 Burner.
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • tsecortsecor Loading........ Members Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    jslane57 wrote:

    tsecor wrote:


    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.
    I don't think you change your driver fitting at all, after all, you have a 3-wood:) You should decide how you want to hit your driver before being fit though. Will you continue hitting up through the ball, getting out of position, and fanning it all over the golf course? Or try to hit it a little more level, keeping your swing solid and in tact, and trying to hit a spot in the fairway? The club really isn't the issue, it is how we swing it...
    agreed, but if the fitting shows that you are just that much straighter with a shorter shaft, smaller head, maybe that's the way to go.....the 3 woods are 175cc on average? maybe a driver in the 400cc area with a 44" shaft might be a deadly combo for a lot of amateur players.....
  • Ri_RedneckRi_Redneck Leather for Life!! Members Posts: 5,510 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Ri_Redneck wrote:

    Ri_Redneck wrote:


    Okay, I just got back from my daily 100 ball lunch break. I made a point of hitting 15 balls each with the driver (250 carry), 3w (235 carry) and 7w (210 carry). I made careful note of my dispersion with each club. Using Google Earth, my driver dispersion was 35 yds, 3w was 34 yds and 7w was 30 yds. That was widest to widest. Of the shots close to center (15' either side) out of the 15: Driver 9, 3w 10 and 7w 12. So, yes my dispersion was very similar with each club, but my percentage of shots close to line was higher with the higher lofted (read shorter) club. I will do my best to apply that to by clubbing decisions on my post-work 9 today.



    BT






    Followup:



    Played 9 at a little track near my office after work today. It maxes about at approximately 5600 yds, fairways are cut to 20 yd width, greens avg 65' wide/deep and treeline to treeline is 35 - 40 yds. What I consider a tight course with small greens. The rough is currently heavy due to higher than normal rainfall. I know the course fairly well because I play a quick 9 there regularly since it is literally right by my office. Normally, I rarely hit driver on anything but the par 5s and a couple of par 4s on the front that are a bit wider. The wind was around 15 mph from the southwest. I played the back 9 and hit driver on 14, 16, 17 & 18.



    #14. 341 (tailwind) with a pond on the right from 200 to 240. Typically I hit my 7w to take the pond out of play and leave a full club to the green. General score is par/birdie. Hit driver (a bit thin) to 90 yds dead center. 3/4 GW to 12' and made birdie.



    #16. 416 (headwind) with only trees to cause problems. One of the par 4s I sometimes hit driver on because it opens up in the landing area. General score is par. Since I was into the wind, I hit a low driver with a dab of fade to 180. The wind magnified the fade and I ended up under a tree in the rough. Fortunately, I had a small opening where I could play a easy 7w which landed pin high and rolled to the back fringe. Chip and putt to par.



    #17 331 (tailwind) with trees as only obstruction. One of the few par 4s with a larger landing area for driver. However, there is a medium sized (40' tall and trimmed to 6.5' above the ground) protecting the right side of the green. Typically, I play 7w to PW distance. Normal score par/birdie. Hit driver with a bit more fade than I wanted ( it happens) to 85 in right rough (light) where green was completely obstructed by tree. Had a smooth SW to hopefully carry tree and land on back of green. Thought I hit it perfect, but the shot caught the top of the tree, dropped down through it to light rough underneath. Had a short-side bump & run under limbs through thicker rough near the edge of the green. Rollout took the ball to the center of the green leaving me about a 15' left to right breaker. missed by a few inches for a bogey.



    #18 352 (headwind) with thick trees right and left to 240, opens up on left after that. Trees to trees is 30 yds. Typically I hit a smooth 3w to around 110 for a GW shot to the green. Normal score par. Playing driver, I had to keep the ball as straight as possible. My had a bit of fade which the wind magnified and the ball hit on the right edge of the fairway and rolled into the edge of the trees. I found the ball resting among several exposed roots with the green completely blocked by a tree. Punched out to the fairway and then played a PW to 15' and 2 putted for bogey.



    Now, it's entirely possible that I could have scored the same playing my normal clubs for those holes, But odds are, I wouldn't have had the tree issues at least on 17 and 18. IMHO, the jury is still out on the "distance is king argument.



    BT




    Interesting. Let me ask you this - those trees on 17 and 18, do you consider them stroke-costing hazards? In other words, if you hit behind that tree on 17 100 times, would you make par 51 times? How about on 18? Its also possible you bogey from the fairway too, so its basically a game of percentages.



    Nobody is arguing distance is king. The argument is distance is king *as long as no stroke-costing hazards are brought into play*. What is a stroke-costing hazard is different player-to-player. I'd feel pretty good about clearing a tree with a wedge so 17 sounds fine. It sounds like 18 you were just dead, and that might be a stroke-costing hazard. It sounds like on 17 its a risk/reward hole and today you got the short end.



    Distance is king doesn't mean pound driver on every hole. It means distance is king provided that distance doesn't bring a stroke-costing issue into play. This also involves knowing your typical miss etc... which it sounds like you do.



    Last question: do you have a favorite short game shot? The distance-is-king school advocates trying to develop something like a .7 strokes short game shot so you don't have to hit the green to have a similar chance at a par as a 2 putt. The concept of GIR has been replaced by nGIR (near green in regulation) which basically means you get to a spot around the green where your expected number of strokes down is the same as a two putt from 40 feet. Just curious.



    Thank you for sharing, I love hearing about people putting stuff into practice like this.




    18, sure, so driver was probably not the wisest choice. 17, it depends on the pin placement. left or back, there's room to clear the tree. However, I had the wind with me, so I was trying to get it high and drop it quick. Slight miss judgement on the shot cost me. I typically can pull off that shot a large percentage of the time. Bailing out left brings a trap into play or a pitch from thick rough to a downhill slope. I would agree that 17 is risk/reward, but being 20 yds further back would have given me a line to the green to save par. I'll try to do this again on a longer wider course in the next month or so and see how it goes.



    I have a crap-ton of short-game shots from 30 yds in. Low hop and check, flops, bump and runs, etc... From 40 to 80 it gets a bit iffy, especially if rough inhibits the amount of spin I can put on the ball. No problems out of the sand either. But trees are trees, so I guess that is my main issue with what your other posts have been preaching. Hitting out of trees is luck and typically requires a modified shot from a less than ideal lie. IMHO, 20 yds shorter and not in ANY trees is FAR better unless it puts you outside your ability to reach the green.



    BT
    Bag 1
    F7 9.5* - Aldila Copperhead 70TX @ 44.5
    King LTD Blk 14.5* - Aldila RIP Beta 80 S @ 43
    King LTD Blk 19* - Aldila RIP Beta 80 S @ 41.5
    Mizuno MP15 4-pw - Aldila RIP Tour 115 R
    Mizuno MP-T5 Black 52, 56 & 60 - TT Wedge

    Bag 2
    Mizuno ST180 9.5* - Diamana Kai'Li 70 X
    Mizuno GPX850 14.5* - Motore Speeder TS 7.3 S
    Mizuno GPX850 20* - Motore Speeder TS 8.3
    Mizuno MP25 4-pw - Recoil Proto 125 F4
    Mizuno MP-T5 Satin 52, 56, & 60 TT Wedge
  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,023 ✭✭
    edited Jun 30, 2017 #162
    jslane57 wrote:

    tsecor wrote:


    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.
    I don't think you change your driver fitting at all, after all, you have a 3-wood:) You should decide how you want to hit your driver before being fit though. Will you continue hitting up through the ball, getting out of position, and fanning it all over the golf course? Or try to hit it a little more level, keeping your swing solid and in tact, and trying to hit a spot in the fairway? The club really isn't the issue, it is how we swing it...




    A lot of assumptions in there about players who try to hit up on the ball.



    The club, primarily shaft length and tip stiffness, have a big role in AoA. You can make the same swing and have totally different AoAs based on the equipment you are using.



    EDIT: If this is how tsecor described hitting his driver, then my apologies. I read it as you assuming a lot of guys try and fail to hit up on the ball.
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members Posts: 3,487 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jun 30, 2017 #163
    tsecor wrote:


    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.




    The best solution to this problem is to learn to hit irons out of the rough.



    The best player in the world at hitting fairways (with significant sample size) is Chez Revie. He hits 70%. The best player in the world at hitting fairways misses a third of the time.



    The average on tour is about 59.8%. So of the probably the best 200 players in the world, they miss 40% of the time.



    J.B. Holmes, the 50th ranked player in the world, hits *less than half* of his fairways.



    It. Doesn't. Matter.



    Stop contorting yourself into crazy driver head sizes and shaft lengths and just learn to hit irons from the rough. Its 100x easier and it is way more effective than trying to be better than a tour pro with driver accuracy. If the best PGA fairway hitter hits about 9.87 fairways a round, its not effective practice or equipment selection for you to try to hit 10. As the gentlemen above said, don't put that pressure on yourself.



    EDIT:

    This is overblown, it "matters". It just doesn't matter nearly as much as approach shot skill or distance.



    SECOND EDIT:

    Before someone responds with this, "not in the fairway" isn't the same thing as "behind a tree" or "in a lake". A clear shot at the green is really important. Being in the short grass not so much.
    Ping g30 driver, various shafts
    Adams tight lies 3 wood
    rest is up for debate
  • tsecortsecor Loading........ Members Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    rawdog wrote:

    tsecor wrote:


    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.




    Hi and apologies if you posted this earlier in the thread or elsewhere, but what are your driver and 3w specs now? Do you know your angle of attack with driver vs. 3w?



    As jslane may have alluded to above, a lot of players hit up on driver (positive angle of attack) vs the downward blow of a 3w. Apologies if I'm covering ground you already know. Generally, a downward AoA will produce more spin and can stabilize ball flight.



    A lot of players who have a downward AoA with driver will play a driver with more loft to negate the AoA, but this increases spin even more and reduces distance.



    I think PSG has some sort of Frankenwood he cooked up, but there are off-the-shelf mini drivers and high lofted drivers that would be great for those who want a little more directional control.



    As for length, I think the consensus around here has been that going with a 44.5 or even 43.5 in driver shaft doesn't affect distance much if at all.



    Hireko offers the Acer Thriver, which is 10-20 grams heavier than traditional driver heads to accommodate a shorter shaft. It comes in 12* loft.

    http://www.hirekogol...r-clubhead.html



    A side benefit of the heavier head is a theoretical increase in smash factor.

    "Increasing the clubhead mass also increases the smash factor, but not by much at all. A 10% increase in clubhead mass results in only a 1.7% increase in smash factor. (Again, we are using a driver for the model club, with a loft of 10º.)"

    https://www.tutelman...smashfactor.php



    For someone with a smash of only 1.4 and 90mph SS, that would be a gain of 2.1mph ball speed, or 2-5 more yards. Not insignificant.



    I play my F7 at 44.5 and stock weight and while my center strikes aren't any better, there are way fewer disaster misses than when I had my 46.25 inch 09 Burner.
    the only thing i disagree with is the 2-5 yards...it really is insignificant in the big picture. if you hit a ball 6 feet past me, its not going to have a big impact on the score.
  • tsecortsecor Loading........ Members Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jun 30, 2017 #165

    tsecor wrote:


    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.




    The best solution to this problem is to learn to hit irons out of the rough.



    The best player in the world at hitting fairways (with significant sample size) is Chez Revie. He hits 70%. The best player in the world at hitting fairways misses a third of the time.



    The average on tour is about 59.8%. So of the probably the best 200 players in the world, they miss 40% of the time.



    J.B. Holmes, the 50th ranked player in the world, hits *less than half* of his fairways.



    It. Doesn't. Matter.



    Stop contorting yourself into crazy driver head sizes and shaft lengths and just learn to hit irons from the rough. Its 100x easier and it is way more effective than trying to be better than a tour pro with driver accuracy.
    did you watch erin hills? how did the top players in the world handle the rough? how did the guys do in the fairway? and once again, you try to take the post in another direction but lets try to keep it somewhat on point. but by all means, every golfer should learn to hit from the rough because most players end up there quite often
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members Posts: 3,487 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    rawdog wrote:

    tsecor wrote:


    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.




    Hi and apologies if you posted this earlier in the thread or elsewhere, but what are your driver and 3w specs now? Do you know your angle of attack with driver vs. 3w?



    As jslane may have alluded to above, a lot of players hit up on driver (positive angle of attack) vs the downward blow of a 3w. Apologies if I'm covering ground you already know. Generally, a downward AoA will produce more spin and can stabilize ball flight.



    A lot of players who have a downward AoA with driver will play a driver with more loft to negate the AoA, but this increases spin even more and reduces distance.



    I think PSG has some sort of Frankenwood he cooked up, but there are off-the-shelf mini drivers and high lofted drivers that would be great for those who want a little more directional control.



    As for length, I think the consensus around here has been that going with a 44.5 or even 43.5 in driver shaft doesn't affect distance much if at all.



    Hireko offers the Acer Thriver, which is 10-20 grams heavier than traditional driver heads to accommodate a shorter shaft. It comes in 12* loft.

    http://www.hirekogol...r-clubhead.html



    A side benefit of the heavier head is a theoretical increase in smash factor.

    "Increasing the clubhead mass also increases the smash factor, but not by much at all. A 10% increase in clubhead mass results in only a 1.7% increase in smash factor. (Again, we are using a driver for the model club, with a loft of 10º.)"

    https://www.tutelman...smashfactor.php



    For someone with a smash of only 1.4 and 90mph SS, that would be a gain of 2.1mph ball speed, or 2-5 more yards. Not insignificant.



    I play my F7 at 44.5 and stock weight and while my center strikes aren't any better, there are way fewer disaster misses than when I had my 46.25 inch 09 Burner.




    I did indeed have a frankenwood. Lucky 13* with head weight added and 44" (<- i think, might have been something else). Was a great club. 3 deep replaced it.
    Ping g30 driver, various shafts
    Adams tight lies 3 wood
    rest is up for debate
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members Posts: 3,487 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    tsecor wrote:


    tsecor wrote:


    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.




    The best solution to this problem is to learn to hit irons out of the rough.



    The best player in the world at hitting fairways (with significant sample size) is Chez Revie. He hits 70%. The best player in the world at hitting fairways misses a third of the time.



    The average on tour is about 59.8%. So of the probably the best 200 players in the world, they miss 40% of the time.



    J.B. Holmes, the 50th ranked player in the world, hits *less than half* of his fairways.



    It. Doesn't. Matter.



    Stop contorting yourself into crazy driver head sizes and shaft lengths and just learn to hit irons from the rough. Its 100x easier and it is way more effective than trying to be better than a tour pro with driver accuracy.
    did you watch erin hills? how did the top players in the world handle the rough? how did the guys do in the fairway? and once again, you try to take the post in another direction but lets try to keep it somewhat on point. but by all means, every golfer should learn to hit from the rough because most players end up there quite often




    http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/06/us-open-driving-accuracy-stat-fantasy-picks-sleepers-preview



    Article is entitled "Why Driving Accuracy is the most overrated US Open stat"



    "It’s a common refrain every time the U.S. Open rolls around. People take one look at the monstrous rough and reflexively start talking about Driving Accuracy. Gotta keep it in the short stuff. Anybody who hits it in the rough this week is dead. All the cliches.

    The theory makes sense, logically, but it never really bears out in practice. Just look down the list of the best, recent U.S. Open players: Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson, Jason Day, Rory McIlroy, Martin Kaymer, Retief Goosen. All these players are far more powerful than they are accurate off the tee. Same goes for other high-performers like Sergio Garcia, Justin Rose and Lee Westwood. Elite ball-strikers, veering more towards power. The only real exceptions are Jim Furyk and Jason Dufner, two of the most constant tee-to-green players on tour.


    Why is this the case? Well, for a few reasons..."


    You should read that article. Driving accuracy has almost zero relation to winning a US Open. Incidentally they draw the same regression line I've been trying to get you to think about.
    Ping g30 driver, various shafts
    Adams tight lies 3 wood
    rest is up for debate
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members Posts: 3,487 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    This is directly related to your original post. You said you'd "save 5 strokes per loop" (which is insanely high) by being in the fairway, and then asked "What are your thoughts?"



    My thoughts are that your conventional golf wisdom is wrong, and spending practice time and equipment to hit the fairway by being shorter on purpose is bad because you arn't actually getting more accurate, just shorter on the same line.
    Ping g30 driver, various shafts
    Adams tight lies 3 wood
    rest is up for debate
  • JeffreySpicoliJeffreySpicoli Members Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    matthewb wrote:


    Scott Fawcett has great info on deciding to use driver. See 13:45 and 21:00 in below video. (Entire video is well worth it.)








    Guys, you're ignoring Fawcett's work at your own peril.
  • Ri_RedneckRi_Redneck Leather for Life!! Members Posts: 5,510 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    rawdog wrote:

    tsecor wrote:


    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.




    Hi and apologies if you posted this earlier in the thread or elsewhere, but what are your driver and 3w specs now? Do you know your angle of attack with driver vs. 3w?



    As jslane may have alluded to above, a lot of players hit up on driver (positive angle of attack) vs the downward blow of a 3w. Apologies if I'm covering ground you already know. Generally, a downward AoA will produce more spin and can stabilize ball flight.



    A lot of players who have a downward AoA with driver will play a driver with more loft to negate the AoA, but this increases spin even more and reduces distance.



    I think PSG has some sort of Frankenwood he cooked up, but there are off-the-shelf mini drivers and high lofted drivers that would be great for those who want a little more directional control.



    As for length, I think the consensus around here has been that going with a 44.5 or even 43.5 in driver shaft doesn't affect distance much if at all.



    Hireko offers the Acer Thriver, which is 10-20 grams heavier than traditional driver heads to accommodate a shorter shaft. It comes in 12* loft.

    http://www.hirekogol...r-clubhead.html



    A side benefit of the heavier head is a theoretical increase in smash factor.

    "Increasing the clubhead mass also increases the smash factor, but not by much at all. A 10% increase in clubhead mass results in only a 1.7% increase in smash factor. (Again, we are using a driver for the model club, with a loft of 10º.)"

    https://www.tutelman...smashfactor.php



    For someone with a smash of only 1.4 and 90mph SS, that would be a gain of 2.1mph ball speed, or 2-5 more yards. Not insignificant.



    I play my F7 at 44.5 and stock weight and while my center strikes aren't any better, there are way fewer disaster misses than when I had my 46.25 inch 09 Burner.




    As to fitting, I am not one of those who hits up on the driver. I prefer to contact the ball at or slightly ahead of the low point i my swing. IIRC, the most upward AOA I have ever seen on a LM is +2. Since all the low spin drivers have come out, I have lofted up (10.5-11.5) to get the same performance I used to get from much lower loft (7.5-9) on spinnier drivers. I have my LTD set at 11.5*, the Fly-Zs set at 10.5 and the JPX850 at 10. On a whim, I got out my 975 L-fe 7.5 / Matrix HD8 S and checked to see if maybe it was me. Same trajectory as the LTD. I grabbed a Callaway Steelhead 11* driver to compare also, it flies like my 7w!! So, head design helps a ton with spin these days.



    BT
    Bag 1
    F7 9.5* - Aldila Copperhead 70TX @ 44.5
    King LTD Blk 14.5* - Aldila RIP Beta 80 S @ 43
    King LTD Blk 19* - Aldila RIP Beta 80 S @ 41.5
    Mizuno MP15 4-pw - Aldila RIP Tour 115 R
    Mizuno MP-T5 Black 52, 56 & 60 - TT Wedge

    Bag 2
    Mizuno ST180 9.5* - Diamana Kai'Li 70 X
    Mizuno GPX850 14.5* - Motore Speeder TS 7.3 S
    Mizuno GPX850 20* - Motore Speeder TS 8.3
    Mizuno MP25 4-pw - Recoil Proto 125 F4
    Mizuno MP-T5 Satin 52, 56, & 60 TT Wedge
  • JeffreySpicoliJeffreySpicoli Members Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    tsecor wrote:


    did you watch erin hills? how did the top players in the world handle the rough? how did the guys do in the fairway? and once again, you try to take the post in another direction but lets try to keep it somewhat on point. but by all means, every golfer should learn to hit from the rough because most players end up there quite often




    Fawcett discusses Erin Hills in this podcast. He notes that fairways and shorter rough (excluding fescue) were quite wide. No reason to not hit driver.



    http://www.friedegg.co/podcasts/scott-fawcett

  • chrismikaylachrismikayla Members Posts: 1,032 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    tsecor wrote:





    The point is that this is a false dichotomy. Distance and accuracy are intertwined so tightly that you can't evaluate one without the other. Both are absolutely needed, but without thinking about it you are choosing based on both distance AND accuracy. You hit the hybrid "Straighter" *Because* it travels less far and it has more loft. Picking a hybrid "based on distance" is also an accuracy decision. If it was possible for you to catch a flyer off the tee and hit your hybrid 310, you wouldn't hit it as often because it could go way offline. But a 250 3 hybrid off the tee can only go so far left or right. Inherent in a distance decision is an accuracy decision and vice versa. That's what I'm saying. You can't evaluate "accuracy" by the fairway or by simply how far off the target line you go. You have to factor in distance because it is a fact of physics that when we measure golf impact we measure in degrees and the further the ball travels the more offline it will go given the same number of degrees off at impact.



    Everyone talks about the old guy at their club who hits it up the middle all the time but chances are he's not very accurate at all. He's just short. In choosing equipment (and evaluating/choosing whether to) cut down your driver, you have to evaluate your accuracy in terms of the percent you miss the target line as a proportion of your distance. "i'm in the fairway more" doesn't actually mean anything. Incidentally, I believe this is the reason that a whole lot of people have games that don't travel well. They optimize their equipment for their home course without even realizing it because they use things like "fairways hit". Then they go to a tight/wide course and their inaccurate/short.





    Agreed!
    "the old guy" dam......ageism



    He's in the middle of the fairway, but he isn't accurate......gotta love it.....




    I didn't say he isn't, I said he might not be. That isn't the same thing. Seriously man, this is how physics works.



    If a fairway is 40 yards wide and a golfer drives the ball 200 yards it is virtually impossible for them to miss the fairway. They would have to have over a 20% miss (20 yards either side). Its almost impossible to swing that badly unless you try. Since we measure clubface in degrees, the longer the golfer hits it the more offline he will be given the same face angle at impact. The golfer in the example above who drives it 200 into a 40 yard wide fairway can be somewhere around 14* open or close at impact and still hit the fairway. A golfer who drives it 250 has to be at 5* open or closed.



    So yes, as strange as it sounds, people in the fairway all the time arn't necessarily accurate. As they get shorter they don't need to be as accurate and they can still hit the fairway. This is why this game is difficult - its counter-intuitive.



    If you chopped 50 yards off my driving distance tomorrow, I'd get about 30% more accurate and hit about 35% more fairways simply because I can't go far enough to get out of the fairway. Look at the diagram I drew earlier in the thread. 1 is just as inaccurate as 4 (its the same line) but he's in the fairway because he's short. Don't be that guy.



    If you drive your car forward ten yards and don't get in an accident, you can't conclude from that you are a safe driver. You didn't go far enough to get into trouble. A golf ball that travels shorter has to be hit much worse to go out of the fairway than a golf ball that travels farther.



    [url=&quot;http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-1/Vectors-and-Direction&quot;]http://www.physicscl...s-and-Direction[/url]



    In the context of this discussion, the key is to make sure cutting down your driver is actually changing the vector, not simply moving you backwards along the same one. If you just move back along the same vector you are only more accurate if you happen to play a course where the fairway ends at the place your shorter driver now lands you (i.e. not likely at all).



    EDIT:

    I realize path throws a **** wrench into it, but this is basically correct for this discussion IMO.


    You lost me when you mentioned vector angle LOL.
    Nike Covert 2.0 Driver
    Nike Vapor Flex 3 wood
    Nike Vapor Pro 3-PW
    Titliest 913 H
    Cleveland Classic 4.5 Putter
    Taylormade RAC TP- 52, 56, 60

  • rawdograwdog Cleveland, OHMembers Posts: 3,023 ✭✭
    tsecor wrote:

    rawdog wrote:

    tsecor wrote:


    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.




    Hi and apologies if you posted this earlier in the thread or elsewhere, but what are your driver and 3w specs now? Do you know your angle of attack with driver vs. 3w?



    As jslane may have alluded to above, a lot of players hit up on driver (positive angle of attack) vs the downward blow of a 3w. Apologies if I'm covering ground you already know. Generally, a downward AoA will produce more spin and can stabilize ball flight.



    A lot of players who have a downward AoA with driver will play a driver with more loft to negate the AoA, but this increases spin even more and reduces distance.



    I think PSG has some sort of Frankenwood he cooked up, but there are off-the-shelf mini drivers and high lofted drivers that would be great for those who want a little more directional control.



    As for length, I think the consensus around here has been that going with a 44.5 or even 43.5 in driver shaft doesn't affect distance much if at all.



    Hireko offers the Acer Thriver, which is 10-20 grams heavier than traditional driver heads to accommodate a shorter shaft. It comes in 12* loft.

    http://www.hirekogol...r-clubhead.html



    A side benefit of the heavier head is a theoretical increase in smash factor.

    "Increasing the clubhead mass also increases the smash factor, but not by much at all. A 10% increase in clubhead mass results in only a 1.7% increase in smash factor. (Again, we are using a driver for the model club, with a loft of 10º.)"

    https://www.tutelman...smashfactor.php



    For someone with a smash of only 1.4 and 90mph SS, that would be a gain of 2.1mph ball speed, or 2-5 more yards. Not insignificant.



    I play my F7 at 44.5 and stock weight and while my center strikes aren't any better, there are way fewer disaster misses than when I had my 46.25 inch 09 Burner.
    the only thing i disagree with is the 2-5 yards...it really is insignificant in the big picture. if you hit a ball 6 feet past me, its not going to have a big impact on the score.




    I'll give ya that one. The impact on scoring is minimal. Best to view that 2-5 yards as a pleasant byproduct than a reason to add weight to a club.
    Cobra LTD Driver
    Aldila Rogue Black, 9.5* @44.5"
    In1Zone Single Length Fairway Woods

    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 5W = 19*
    Graffaloy ProLaunch Axis Blue @41.5" 7W = 23*
    Cobra F7 One Length Irons
    Nippon Modus 105 Stiff @ 36.5"
    6I = 24* 7I = 29* 8I = 34* 9I = 39* PW = 44* GW = 49* SW = 54* LW = 59*
    Odyssey #9 HT Metal X Milled @33.5"
    Maxfli SoftFli
  • Ri_RedneckRi_Redneck Leather for Life!! Members Posts: 5,510 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jun 30, 2017 #174
    Last post to you PSG and I'm leaving to go play. Pros in the rough and ams in the rough are two different things.



    1. Pros have cameras, spotters and the gallery to help them find the ball. I can't count how many times I have had a ball land in the fairway and ROLL INTO the rough and can't f*cking find it anywhere!!! It wastes time, pisses me off and throws my game off.



    2. How many times have we heard the announcers say "Well he lucked out there. The rough in that are is all trampled down by the gallery" Well that just doesn't happen for me. A lot of the rough I get in is thick and gnarly. Learning to hit out of it is accepting that you have to lay-up with a 7i (or less) from 200 instead of the 4i you would normally play from that distance. In this situation, the rough is a stroke-costing hazard!



    3. "Learning to hit out of the rough" is not nearly as easy as learning to hit your FWs consistently from the fairway. Point being, Driver puts me at 200 in the rough. 3w puts me at 220 in the fairway. Which shot has better odds, 4i out of thick rough or 7w off a clean lie? I can tell you unconditionally that I will put the 7w in close proximity to the green FAR more than the 4i from heavy rough. Sure, if the rough is thin or all stomped down, the 4i will be MUCH easier. Problem is, I can't really distinguish the condition of the rough when I'm 275 yds away. But I can **** sure tell you the condition of the fairway from 275 and that's weighs pretty heavily on my shot/club selection when playing.



    With that, I will everyone a happy 4th and be on my way.



    BT
    Bag 1
    F7 9.5* - Aldila Copperhead 70TX @ 44.5
    King LTD Blk 14.5* - Aldila RIP Beta 80 S @ 43
    King LTD Blk 19* - Aldila RIP Beta 80 S @ 41.5
    Mizuno MP15 4-pw - Aldila RIP Tour 115 R
    Mizuno MP-T5 Black 52, 56 & 60 - TT Wedge

    Bag 2
    Mizuno ST180 9.5* - Diamana Kai'Li 70 X
    Mizuno GPX850 14.5* - Motore Speeder TS 7.3 S
    Mizuno GPX850 20* - Motore Speeder TS 8.3
    Mizuno MP25 4-pw - Recoil Proto 125 F4
    Mizuno MP-T5 Satin 52, 56, & 60 TT Wedge
  • Adam BillmeyerAdam Billmeyer Get on iyyt Members Posts: 297 ✭✭✭✭
    tsecor wrote:


    I see a lot of members talk about using a 3 wood off the tee because the driver isn't working.......with todays technology and "forgiveness", you would think drivers are much easier to hit than years past. The huge 460cc heads are supposed to inspire confidence (I hate them personally), but its funny how a smaller head 3W with a shorter shaft provides that confidence to a lot of amateur players.....maybe club fitting should be geared towards shaft length along with the other fitting parameters. I know it is somewhat, but what are your thoughts? It seems a lot of people like the 3w off the tee because it flies straight for them....but the heads are tiny compared to todays drivers and I know the shafts are shorter.....maybe that's the key to good fitting. Sure you lose some yardage, but if it flies down the middle and you are confident with the club, hitting it 240 down the middle instead of 260 into the rough may save you 5 strokes a loop.



    What are your thoughts?




    Check out this article. Golf Digest did a test with a group of golfers to see if the 3w is actually more accurate than driver. Basic summary is that it isn't. Benefits of hitting driver out weigh the slight accuracy gain. Good read for sure.



    http://www.golfdigest.com/story/golftechdriver


    Taylormade M4 8.75* Speeder 661 Evolution 6.2X
    Callaway Alpha 815 14* Speeder 665 X
    Taylormade GAPR Lo 2 iron
    Taylormade M1 18.25* Hybrid ('17) Aldila RIP Phenom 100 Tour X
    Mizuno MP-64 4-PW Project X 6.5 - hardstep 1
    Mizuno S18 Black 52* and 56*
    Bettinardi Custom Minovai Limited Run/Queen B8/BB53/Inovai 3.0/Studio Stock 15/Black Carbon BC-3

    Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement
  • JunkerJorgeJunkerJorge Members Posts: 316 ✭✭✭✭



    Are some shorter hitters more "accurate" (not really in term of their directional angle) as a function of being short? Sure. But they can score that way. Jim Furyk sure has made a lot of $$$ with his "no more accurate" swing.




    Me: Wanna buy my keep away elephants rock?

    You: Sure, if it works. Does it work?

    Me: You don't see any elephants around here, do you?



    Furyk is an incredible player, but its silly to argue that because he is good and short you should strive to be short or be content with it. Horschel has also won a ton of $$, so I assume you break clubs constantly during play. Tiger won a whole lot more money being long and wild. I'd be willing to bet that if we actually did an analysis of driving distance to career tour earnings the short guys would lose by quite a bit.




    Dude. Seriously? I'm not even going to address the logical fallacy issue here (both ways)



    I am AGREEING with you that 1. Longer is better for scoring even if it brings in a higher probability of rough and 2. Longer can and does give the illusion of less angular accuracy. What I am saying is that angular accuracy is not the only metric of accuracy. You are acting like I don't understand your concept. Why is dispersion pattern a bad way to measure accuracy?



    I would say if you could lay your dispersion pattern on the course map (a la the decade guys) it would give you a better idea of where your ball could end up. A shorter club has a tighter dispersion based on the very phenomenon you explained.



    Have you played with anyone over a 10 handicap? How many penalty strokes do they have? I am not saying pros should hit less driver but I know many players who should because on many holes they have a huge chance of OB that by strokes gained offset their chances of birdie by a wide margin. How can you look at a tighter dispersion grouping and say yeah well that's not accuracy? It is. So is angular accuracy. They are both two helpful ways at making decisions. But different people, course, and situations will have different optimal strategies. I'll just hang up now and listen because it's not getting anywhere. At any rate I mostly agree with what you are saying but the experience of a 2 capper is not normative for most of the golfing population.
  • tsecortsecor Loading........ Members Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jun 30, 2017 #177

    tsecor wrote:


    tsecor wrote:


    So based on everything that is out there



    how would a fitting change, if at all, in relation to the large numbers of players who are more accurate with their 3 woods when buying a driver?



    Should a shorter shaft, smaller head be the recommendation? The 460cc head is not for me. Maybe a 420cc head with a shorter shaft would work wonders for the people who hit their drivers into the rough all day.




    The best solution to this problem is to learn to hit irons out of the rough.



    The best player in the world at hitting fairways (with significant sample size) is Chez Revie. He hits 70%. The best player in the world at hitting fairways misses a third of the time.



    The average on tour is about 59.8%. So of the probably the best 200 players in the world, they miss 40% of the time.



    J.B. Holmes, the 50th ranked player in the world, hits *less than half* of his fairways.



    It. Doesn't. Matter.



    Stop contorting yourself into crazy driver head sizes and shaft lengths and just learn to hit irons from the rough. Its 100x easier and it is way more effective than trying to be better than a tour pro with driver accuracy.
    did you watch erin hills? how did the top players in the world handle the rough? how did the guys do in the fairway? and once again, you try to take the post in another direction but lets try to keep it somewhat on point. but by all means, every golfer should learn to hit from the rough because most players end up there quite often




    http://ftw.usatoday....leepers-preview



    Article is entitled "Why Driving Accuracy is the most overrated US Open stat"



    "It’s a common refrain every time the U.S. Open rolls around. People take one look at the monstrous rough and reflexively start talking about Driving Accuracy. Gotta keep it in the short stuff. Anybody who hits it in the rough this week is dead. All the cliches.

    The theory makes sense, logically, but it never really bears out in practice. Just look down the list of the best, recent U.S. Open players: Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson, Jason Day, Rory McIlroy, Martin Kaymer, Retief Goosen. All these players are far more powerful than they are accurate off the tee. Same goes for other high-performers like Sergio Garcia, Justin Rose and Lee Westwood. Elite ball-strikers, veering more towards power. The only real exceptions are Jim Furyk and Jason Dufner, two of the most constant tee-to-green players on tour.

    Why is this the case? Well, for a few reasons..."

    You should read that article. Driving accuracy has almost zero relation to winning a US Open. Incidentally they draw the same regression line I've been trying to get you to think about.
    Why don't you post the part that says "hitting a shorter club off the tee and into the greens gives you a massive advantage this week at erin Hills"...and it proved to be true. All the long top players in the world missed the cut......because they were so accurate with their drivers playing form the rough. lol



    Decent read



    http://www.golfdigest.com/story/sanders_gd0809





    If you really want to assess how you're driving the ball, forget about fairways hit. The number you need to know is how many shots your errant drives cost you. Think of this number as a gauge of how much you spray the ball: the lower the better.

    Each time you miss a fairway, there's a cost. That cost varies by how much the resulting situation affects your opportunity to hit the green -- or to accomplish your normal goal -- on the next shot



    EXAMPLE: JOE GOLFER LOSES 8 SHOTS TO BAD DRIVING

    Joe, an 18-handicapper, went out the other day and shot 90. On his scorecard (below), he gave each drive, except on par 3s, a score

    of 0-4 points. Joe was careful to score according to how each drive affected his opportunity to hit the next shot (other golfers who handle tough lies better or worse than Joe might have rated the same drives differently). Joe hit three drives in the fairway, four in the light rough and two in the heavy rough.

    In addition, he twice had to chip out sideways, twice had to take a drop from a water hazard, and on one hole drove it out-of-bounds. After the round, we had Joe add up all his points and divide by 2. (Using our points system and dividing by 2 means you don't have to deal in decimals.
  • disco111disco111 Members Posts: 1,093 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Me: Wanna buy my keep away elephants rock?

    You: Sure, if it works. Does it work?

    Me: You don't see any elephants around here, do you?





    WAIT!...WHAT!?...........You have one of those rocks..................Well that puts stuff into perspective............ image/WTF.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':WTF:' /> image/cheesy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':cheesy:' />
  • tsecortsecor Loading........ Members Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭


    This is directly related to your original post. You said you'd "save 5 strokes per loop" (which is insanely high) by being in the fairway, and then asked "What are your thoughts?"



    My thoughts are that your conventional golf wisdom is wrong, and spending practice time and equipment to hit the fairway by being shorter on purpose is bad because you arn't actually getting more accurate, just shorter on the same line.
    once again....you are way off topic with the "being shorter on purpose".....only you said that.......this is for the people who can hit the 3w more accurately than their driver and how it relates to club fitting. You have taken this topic in 5 different direction trying to prove a point which has nothing to do with the original subject.......
  • Adam BillmeyerAdam Billmeyer Get on iyyt Members Posts: 297 ✭✭✭✭
    More good stats



    http://www.golfdigest.com/story/make-the-right-choice-between-hitting-driver-vs-3-wood



    Like everything else, its personal preference. But I think that, generally, amateur golfers are not significantly more accurate enough with 3 wood to justify the distance loss relevant to driver.



    Especially for players hitting the ball 220-235 with driver. That means 3w is flying about 205 off the tee. Golf is a miserable game hitting 3w-3w on regular length par 4s. I would say, hit driver and try and have a long hybrid or less in to those greens...



    Now if you are hitting 3w 250 then it is probably a smarter play since the distance gained with driver is negligible.


    Taylormade M4 8.75* Speeder 661 Evolution 6.2X
    Callaway Alpha 815 14* Speeder 665 X
    Taylormade GAPR Lo 2 iron
    Taylormade M1 18.25* Hybrid ('17) Aldila RIP Phenom 100 Tour X
    Mizuno MP-64 4-PW Project X 6.5 - hardstep 1
    Mizuno S18 Black 52* and 56*
    Bettinardi Custom Minovai Limited Run/Queen B8/BB53/Inovai 3.0/Studio Stock 15/Black Carbon BC-3

    Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement
  • kgkkgk Slapshot Members Posts: 1,265 ✭✭



    Are some shorter hitters more "accurate" (not really in term of their directional angle) as a function of being short? Sure. But they can score that way. Jim Furyk sure has made a lot of $$$ with his "no more accurate" swing.




    Me: Wanna buy my keep away elephants rock?

    You: Sure, if it works. Does it work?

    Me: You don't see any elephants around here, do you?



    Furyk is an incredible player, but its silly to argue that because he is good and short you should strive to be short or be content with it. Horschel has also won a ton of $$, so I assume you break clubs constantly during play. Tiger won a whole lot more money being long and wild. I'd be willing to bet that if we actually did an analysis of driving distance to career tour earnings the short guys would lose by quite a bit.




    Mark Broadie did this in Every Shot Counts. And you're right.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file