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

3W vs Driver off the tee

145791049

Comments

  • tsecortsecor Loading........ Members Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭


    More good stats



    http://www.golfdiges...river-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.




    Certainly we see this quite often on the professional tours. But is this something everyday players should embrace? Golf Digest ran a test a couple years ago with players at high swing speeds (over 105 miles per hour) and slower swing speeds (95 m.p.h. and lower) to determine just how much those players lost in distance from their big stick to their next big stick. The faster swingers lost 27.6 yards (260.05 yards with the driver to 232.45 yards with the 3-wood). The slower swingers, however, dropped only 14.35 yards (219.3 to 204.95).

    The difference makes sense as slower swingers often benefit from added carry from the extra loft
  • Adam BillmeyerAdam Billmeyer Get on iyyt Members Posts: 297 ✭✭✭✭
    tsecor wrote:



    More good stats



    http://www.golfdiges...river-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.




    Certainly we see this quite often on the professional tours. But is this something everyday players should embrace? Golf Digest ran a test a couple years ago with players at high swing speeds (over 105 miles per hour) and slower swing speeds (95 m.p.h. and lower) to determine just how much those players lost in distance from their big stick to their next big stick. The faster swingers lost 27.6 yards (260.05 yards with the driver to 232.45 yards with the 3-wood). The slower swingers, however, dropped only 14.35 yards (219.3 to 204.95).

    The difference makes sense as slower swingers often benefit from added carry from the extra loft




    Precisely. Thats where my numbers came from...the 220 of the tee with Driver to 205 (15 yds) with 3 wood.


    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
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members Posts: 3,487 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jul 1, 2017 #184


    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.




    I agree with everything you have written here. Angular accuracy is important in deciding what club to hit. It just isn't important when evaluating equipment (like cutting a driver down). Angular accuracy will always exist - as you get shorter you get closer to your target line. There is nothing wrong with pulling 3 wood to get tighter to your target line on the same angular vector. However, there *is* something wrong with cutting your driver down and concluding you are more accurate because you are shorter on the same line IMO. I think a lot of people get fooled by short looking more accurate.



    I take your point here, which is that actual golfers on actual courses care about angular accuracy quite a bit. But at a certain point, *in order to not be 10 handicaps* they have to stop thinking that way and start to become comfortable attacking the golf course.



    High caps tend to have this idea that a 72 is just an 86 with 14 fewer mistakes, which is a fantasy. I play with high caps and they're not nearly aggressive enough off the tee and way too aggressive into greens - they try to hit the fairway, and then they aim at the pin every time (anecdotal, I know). Hanging back and then hitting some mid iron into a bunker is a really good way to stay a 10 cap. Sure, you will look dumb more often, but you'll be in birdie position much more often. So yes, if the goal of the 10 cap to literally shoot the best score possible that particular day he should do that (because he's always done that). But at a certain point if he wants to get better he has to start hitting the ball really really hard or he isn't getting better.



    Its like when 20 caps post that they do things because they are "comfortable" from 100 yards or whatever and then complain that they don't get better. You can't just do what you are comfortable doing and get significantly better. You are comfortable with it (not literally you) because you do it all the time, and so you score the same. Why not try what I'm arguing for a month?


    tsecor wrote:



    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.......




    I've taken the topic in one direction, which is to point out that most of the time when mediocre players club down or cut their driver down or whatever 95% of their "accuracy" gains are fake - they are just shorter on the same line. In a "I'm on the tee" sense, as Junker points out, this is valuable. In a "I want to get better what should I practice" sense and a "what equipment should I play" sense being shorter on the same line stinks. I see a whole lot of bad players on the range trying to hit 7 irons at 140 yard flags. I see very few with the one piece of equipment that would seriously help and transform their games - a speedometer.



    You asked for thoughts. Maybe you thought the forum would all echo back to you that cutting down a driver or using a fairway is super smart. I don't think that is the case and the PGA stats don't think that is the case. I think you are locked into conventional golf wisdom about "fairway" and 'rough' when those two terms actually mean nothing (the first cut at a gorgeous course like fallen oak is nicer than the fairways at some other courses I play!). I think often people mistake angular accuracy improvement for just being shorter on the same line, and it reallly hurts their game and improvement. I don't think your orginal premise makes any sense at all, which is why I posted my thoughts that you asked for. If you care to listen to (basically) my argument written in more detail by a much smarter guy, buy Every Shot Counts by Mark Broadie. If you weren't actually looking for thoughts but actually wanted people to give you affirmation your on the right track then feel free to ignore me and him.



    It is totally valid to entertain my argument and then disregard it as incorrect. However, its not like this is some crackpot theory. A third of the tour uses these methods to evaluate their accuracy. Golf isn't chess. Everyone thinks different things. Just be careful to keep your mind open. You used a lot of "LOL"s when the conventional wisdom was challenged. My two cents is that reading Every Shot Counts with an open mind could only help you.



    That said, Junker brings up some excellent counter-points to my arguments. When your on the actual tee tomorrow with your buddies staring at you what I'm saying probably isn't that valuable. Don't change your game in your club championship tomorrow. But when your on the practice tee for the next six months or your picking equipment, I think it is valuable, and I don't see how you lose anything by reading the book.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    Ping g30 driver, various shafts
    Adams tight lies 3 wood
    rest is up for debate
  • mootrailmootrail Members Posts: 523 ✭✭✭✭✭


    ...crackpot...




    Pompous and crackpot.
  • Ri_RedneckRi_Redneck Leather for Life!! Members Posts: 5,510 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jul 1, 2017 #186
    PSG, I'm okay with all your comments except trimming the driver to a shorter length. IF the golfer is having trouble making good consistent contact with their full length driver, it is very advisable for them to TRY a shorter length shaft (providing the clubhead is properly weighted for their swing). It is a proven fact that many improve ballstriking with a shorter shaft and the 1" - 1.5" that is removed only slows CHS by 2-3 mph. This small drop in distance is very often negated by better ballstriking.

    BTW, I played 18 at another local Muni yesterday and played driver instead of FW only on holes where I typically layup to a full club. Of those 5 holes, I was left with approaches from 50-80 yds. I came away with a birdie, a par and three bogies. On the bogies, I ended up either long or short with my partial shot approach. This is exactly what I typically avoid by laying up to full GW distance. Incidentally, all shots were played from the fairway.



    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
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members Posts: 3,487 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jul 1, 2017 #187
    Ri_Redneck wrote:


    PSG, I'm okay with all your comments except trimming the driver to a shorter length. IF the golfer is having trouble making good consistent contact with their full length driver, it is very advisable for them to TRY a shorter length shaft (providing the clubhead is properly weighted for their swing). It is a proven fact that many improve ballstriking with a shorter shaft and the 1" - 1.5" that is removed only slows CHS by 2-3 mph. This small drop in distance is very often negated by better ballstriking.

    BTW, I played 18 at another local Muni yesterday and played driver instead of FW only on holes where I typically layup to a full club. Of those 5 holes, I was left with approaches from 50-80 yds. I came away with a birdie, a par and three bogies. On the bogies, I ended up either long or short with my partial shot approach. This is exactly what I typically avoid by laying up to full GW distance. Incidentally, all shots were played from the fairway.



    BT




    Totally agree. I play a cut-down driver with an extra 16g in the head for this reason. The issue comes in when someone cuts their driver down and concludes they are more accurate because they "hit more fairways". That is a meaningless statement.



    My point isn't "don't cut your driver down" its "don't cut your driver down and then take it to the course and not actually measure the results, but use measurements like 'fairway' and 'rough' that don't actually mean anything".



    I understand your 50-80 issue, and if you don't want to get significantly better you should probably hang back (see my comments above). But it is indisputable that you could get better from intermediate wedge distances and that if you do an 80 yard shot is easier than a 100 yard shot. Given those results, practicing those shots could result in a massive drop in score (like, massive). What is the alternative? Just keep practicing from 100 forever?



    Obviously I'm not contending everyone can go do better with this tomorrow. That would be silly. But if I was worse from 50 than 100, which very few golfers are, I'd want to fix it and feast on the 50 yard shots not just accept it and settle for 100.



    You should be super excited you missed those shots and made bogies. Its not often in golf we get to cut a huge number of strokes quickly, and seems like you could with the adoption of a clock wedge system and a month of practice.



    In other words, there is a huge window for improvement here. You can do what is comfortable (hit to 100) and score relatively the same, or you can add those intermediate wedge shots to your game and attack the golf course. Comfortable is optimal for the round you are in but its the enemy of improvement.
    Ping g30 driver, various shafts
    Adams tight lies 3 wood
    rest is up for debate
  • hybrid25hybrid25 michiganMembers Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    I just built a new driver yesterday using an old 'Killer Bee, Sting' 460cc head, TT stiff steel shaft, and a CP2 wrap grip. I took it out to the practice range today and hit it quite well. The club feels quite heavy and I haven't measured the swing weight of it, but I seem to have my way with direction. My Callaway XR 16 driver has been difficult for me to hit these days. I'm hoping this club will keep things in play more often. Distance doesn't seem to be a problem with this new club, it seems to go as far as my xr16. It's one thing to hit balls on the practice range, but it's another thing to do it on tighter fairways while playing 18 holes.
  • Ri_RedneckRi_Redneck Leather for Life!! Members Posts: 5,510 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Ri_Redneck wrote:


    PSG, I'm okay with all your comments except trimming the driver to a shorter length. IF the golfer is having trouble making good consistent contact with their full length driver, it is very advisable for them to TRY a shorter length shaft (providing the clubhead is properly weighted for their swing). It is a proven fact that many improve ballstriking with a shorter shaft and the 1" - 1.5" that is removed only slows CHS by 2-3 mph. This small drop in distance is very often negated by better ballstriking.

    BTW, I played 18 at another local Muni yesterday and played driver instead of FW only on holes where I typically layup to a full club. Of those 5 holes, I was left with approaches from 50-80 yds. I came away with a birdie, a par and three bogies. On the bogies, I ended up either long or short with my partial shot approach. This is exactly what I typically avoid by laying up to full GW distance. Incidentally, all shots were played from the fairway.



    BT




    Totally agree. I play a cut-down driver with an extra 16g in the head for this reason. The issue comes in when someone cuts their driver down and concludes they are more accurate because they "hit more fairways". That is a meaningless statement.



    My point isn't "don't cut your driver down" its "don't cut your driver down and then take it to the course and not actually measure the results, but use measurements like 'fairway' and 'rough' that don't actually mean anything".



    I understand your 50-80 issue, and if you don't want to get significantly better you should probably hang back (see my comments above). But it is indisputable that you could get better from intermediate wedge distances and that if you do an 80 yard shot is easier than a 100 yard shot. Given those results, practicing those shots could result in a massive drop in score (like, massive). What is the alternative? Just keep practicing from 100 forever?



    Obviously I'm not contending everyone can go do better with this tomorrow. That would be silly. But if I was worse from 50 than 100, which very few golfers are, I'd want to fix it and feast on the 50 yard shots not just accept it and settle for 100.



    You should be super excited you missed those shots and made bogies. Its not often in golf we get to cut a huge number of strokes quickly, and seems like you could with the adoption of a clock wedge system and a month of practice.



    In other words, there is a huge window for improvement here. You can do what is comfortable (hit to 100) and score relatively the same, or you can add those intermediate wedge shots to your game and attack the golf course. Comfortable is optimal for the round you are in but its the enemy of improvement.


    I appreciate your enthusiasm, but a 55 yr old guy like me who works close to 50 hrs a week spending a month focusing on a 30-40 yd gap that can be easily avoided sounds silly. Sure, if I was in my 20s, hungry and a good bit of spare time, I'd probably go for it. But that's not the case. Like I said before, we'll have to just agree to disagree.



    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
  • halliedoghalliedog Members Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Can't we all just agree that PSG is correct that shorter in the fairway doesn't necessarily mean more accurate, and others would rather play longer approaches from the fairway? Seems like the same points are getting discussed over and over again. I read every page this morning and got to work later than I wanted to, and now get home and log on and you're all arguing over the same issues. (But I'm hooked to see who wins!)
    WITB:
    Mizuno GT/ST-180 Dr w/ EvenFlow White 6.0 75
    Mizuno GT-180 3wd w/ Tensei CK White 75
    TM UDI 1, 3 w/ KBS C-Taper Lite S
    TM P770 4-PW w/ TT Tour Concept Satin
    TM Milled Grind 52* LB and 58* SB
    Odyssey O-Works 7S Tank
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members Posts: 3,487 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Ri_Redneck wrote:

    Ri_Redneck wrote:


    PSG, I'm okay with all your comments except trimming the driver to a shorter length. IF the golfer is having trouble making good consistent contact with their full length driver, it is very advisable for them to TRY a shorter length shaft (providing the clubhead is properly weighted for their swing). It is a proven fact that many improve ballstriking with a shorter shaft and the 1" - 1.5" that is removed only slows CHS by 2-3 mph. This small drop in distance is very often negated by better ballstriking.

    BTW, I played 18 at another local Muni yesterday and played driver instead of FW only on holes where I typically layup to a full club. Of those 5 holes, I was left with approaches from 50-80 yds. I came away with a birdie, a par and three bogies. On the bogies, I ended up either long or short with my partial shot approach. This is exactly what I typically avoid by laying up to full GW distance. Incidentally, all shots were played from the fairway.



    BT




    Totally agree. I play a cut-down driver with an extra 16g in the head for this reason. The issue comes in when someone cuts their driver down and concludes they are more accurate because they "hit more fairways". That is a meaningless statement.



    My point isn't "don't cut your driver down" its "don't cut your driver down and then take it to the course and not actually measure the results, but use measurements like 'fairway' and 'rough' that don't actually mean anything".



    I understand your 50-80 issue, and if you don't want to get significantly better you should probably hang back (see my comments above). But it is indisputable that you could get better from intermediate wedge distances and that if you do an 80 yard shot is easier than a 100 yard shot. Given those results, practicing those shots could result in a massive drop in score (like, massive). What is the alternative? Just keep practicing from 100 forever?



    Obviously I'm not contending everyone can go do better with this tomorrow. That would be silly. But if I was worse from 50 than 100, which very few golfers are, I'd want to fix it and feast on the 50 yard shots not just accept it and settle for 100.



    You should be super excited you missed those shots and made bogies. Its not often in golf we get to cut a huge number of strokes quickly, and seems like you could with the adoption of a clock wedge system and a month of practice.



    In other words, there is a huge window for improvement here. You can do what is comfortable (hit to 100) and score relatively the same, or you can add those intermediate wedge shots to your game and attack the golf course. Comfortable is optimal for the round you are in but its the enemy of improvement.


    I appreciate your enthusiasm, but a 55 yr old guy like me who works close to 50 hrs a week spending a month focusing on a 30-40 yd gap that can be easily avoided sounds silly. Sure, if I was in my 20s, hungry and a good bit of spare time, I'd probably go for it. But that's not the case. Like I said before, we'll have to just agree to disagree.



    BT




    That's fair. Obviously I'm passionate about it and sometimes I forget that others don't have as much time (note I did NOT say not as passionate) as I do to play and tinker.


    halliedog wrote:


    Can't we all just agree that PSG is correct that shorter in the fairway doesn't necessarily mean more accurate, and others would rather play longer approaches from the fairway? Seems like the same points are getting discussed over and over again. I read every page this morning and got to work later than I wanted to, and now get home and log on and you're all arguing over the same issues. (But I'm hooked to see who wins!)




    You should search for the thread "should I ditch the three wood" its like War and Peace only more characters and a better ending.
    Ping g30 driver, various shafts
    Adams tight lies 3 wood
    rest is up for debate
  • tannyhobantannyhoban Members Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    halliedog wrote:


    Can't we all just agree that PSG is correct that shorter in the fairway doesn't necessarily mean more accurate, and others would rather play longer approaches from the fairway? Seems like the same points are getting discussed over and over again. I read every page this morning and got to work later than I wanted to, and now get home and log on and you're all arguing over the same issues. (But I'm hooked to see who wins!)






    Nobody wins, they have ignored the most important part. Only way to capitalize on all this strategery is to make PUTTS. Ha.



    And ****, there's a lot of analytics making ching.....
  • halliedoghalliedog Members Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jul 3, 2017 #193
    PSG - "You should search for the thread "should I ditch the three wood" its like War and Peace only more characters and a better ending."



    My point exactly. You have your beliefs (that I don't disagree with), others have theirs, and I have mine. No need to keep arguing the same points over and over again. At some point don't you just have to say "my way is right, and people who don't believe that are wrong, but it's not my business to "convert" them to my way of thinking"? I just think everyone is fighting so hard to back up their own beliefs/experiences that we lose sight of the fact that every course, every player, every hole is different to each player. ****, even the same player on the same course is going to be swinging differently from day to day, and all this factors into the shot they decide to "TRY" to play.



    I think we all know how each other feels, but your statistical evidence might not work for me. I could give examples of an older guy I play with (82) who just doesn't have the strength to hit out of rough, but can pipe a 5 wood off the fairway all day long. This isn't meant as a slam on you, just saying there's different ways to skin a cat for different people. Some of those guys are people who have the same/worse "accuracy" with a 3 wood, but it puts them in a better chance to get up, up, and down.





    **edit** And I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, but it just doesn't work that way in real life all the time. Would my 82 year old be better off 3 wood in the fairway 175, or hitting driver 190 into the rough where he has 0 chance of reaching the green? I'm not a stat geek, so don't even understand "Strokes Gained", but I know that guy can hit it farther when he needs to, but doesn't if he doesn't need to.
    WITB:
    Mizuno GT/ST-180 Dr w/ EvenFlow White 6.0 75
    Mizuno GT-180 3wd w/ Tensei CK White 75
    TM UDI 1, 3 w/ KBS C-Taper Lite S
    TM P770 4-PW w/ TT Tour Concept Satin
    TM Milled Grind 52* LB and 58* SB
    Odyssey O-Works 7S Tank
  • JunkerJorgeJunkerJorge Members Posts: 316 ✭✭✭✭
    If all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members Posts: 3,487 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jul 3, 2017 #195
    halliedog wrote:
    PSG - "You should search for the thread "should I ditch the three wood" its like War and Peace only more characters and a better ending."



    My point exactly. You have your beliefs (that I don't disagree with), others have theirs, and I have mine. No need to keep arguing the same points over and over again. At some point don't you just have to say "my way is right, and people who don't believe that are wrong, but it's not my business to "convert" them to my way of thinking"? I just think everyone is fighting so hard to back up their own beliefs/experiences that we lose sight of the fact that every course, every player, every hole is different to each player. ****, even the same player on the same course is going to be swinging differently from day to day, and all this factors into the shot they decide to "TRY" to play.



    I think we all know how each other feels, but your statistical evidence might not work for me. I could give examples of an older guy I play with (82) who just doesn't have the strength to hit out of rough, but can pipe a 5 wood off the fairway all day long. This isn't meant as a slam on you, just saying there's different ways to skin a cat for different people. Some of those guys are people who have the same/worse "accuracy" with a 3 wood, but it puts them in a better chance to get up, up, and down.





    **edit** And I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, but it just doesn't work that way in real life all the time. Would my 82 year old be better off 3 wood in the fairway 175, or hitting driver 190 into the rough where he has 0 chance of reaching the green? I'm not a stat geek, so don't even understand "Strokes Gained", but I know that guy can hit it farther when he needs to, but doesn't if he doesn't need to.




    They're not the same. Whether a high cap should carry a 3 wood has nothing to do with how to measure accuracy. This isn't a closed system, people are joining and leaving WRX all the time. If someone posts a topic and asks for thoughts, I'll post mine.



    The issue is posts like this one, which mis-state / don't understand the strokes gained approach. You didn't have to post this you could have just stayed quiet, but now I have two choices:



    1. Correct your silly 190/175 comment or

    2. Say nothing and having people who read this think you have a point.



    How should I respond to that? Strokes gained isn't a "philosophy", its a statistical measurement. Whether you look down at the speedometer or not your car is still going a certain speed, and whether you measure it or not you are gaining and losing strokes on every shot. What you're saying here is that looking at the speedometer is "appropriate" for some but not for all. Since when do we want less information and not more? But its not a "philosophy" you "follow" any more than your car's speed is a "philosophy". It exists. Every time you play. Your just not measuring it.



    I rarely post *until* people say things that simply arn't true, at which point I correct them.



    You just self-confessed to not understand it and then took a pot shot at it. How can you do that if you don't understand it?



    Opinions are good. They lead to good discussion. Saying "I don't understand Strokes gained but it's wrong sometimes and not for everyone" is silly. If you don't understand it you have no idea. I'm always going to correct that. I don't want people reading things (for example, that a HHer shouldn't hit 3w) when it is *directly contrary* to published studies. One is somebody spouting conventional wisdom golf nonsense and one is peer reviewed and probably accurate. I'm always going to correct it when I see it. I've read a ton of academic articles about the process of getting better, and I'm going to make my arguments just like a club builder would or anyone else.



    I expect if someone posted 100 times that a club should be shafted with elmer's glue they'd get corrected 100 times. Same here. The only difference is for some reason golfers don't realize there is a mountain of literature on the process of improvement and just try to wing it themselves. But most of these home-grown approaches are just as valid as shafting your new hybrid with Elmer's.



    "Everyone is different. Epoxy might work for you but elmer's works for me."



    EDIT

    A whole lot of people on this site rail against "conventional golf" - the jacked lofts, the OEMs, the product release cycles, the non-stop parroting of how to hit this type of shot or that type of shot, etc... etc... They will spend thousnads of dollars and hundreds of hours and yet if you suggest to them that maybe some other conventional golf wisdom - like that there was a study done at Columbia which showed putting skill doesn't matter whatsoever above a 5 cap, and that there was a study done at Purdue that found virtually every player below a 3 cap avoided technical thoughts while playing and virtually every player above a 10 thought nothing but tecnical thoughts - and they call you nuts and refuse to read any of the literature. Absolutely bizzare.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    Ping g30 driver, various shafts
    Adams tight lies 3 wood
    rest is up for debate
  • Bingo1976Bingo1976 Members Posts: 2,594 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    I think that you have to play to your strengths. I currently have a badly fitted driver that gains me little distance vs my 3 wood, which I can carry 240 yards on a good hit. I am also a reasonable iron player, so I don't mind having a 6 iron vs an 8 iron if it means I am in the fairway and not in rough or a bunker. My weakness is currently between 30 and 90 yards, which I am working on, but in the mean time, it makes no sense for me to leave myself an uncomfortable 70 yard shot (which I can flub or skull) when I know I can hit a 9 or PW to within birdie range (15ft) a reasonable amount of times, and is unlikely to cost me a shot.



    Am I being hugely aggressive? No. Do I want to be - yes, in an ideal world, but I will pick my holes where I can attack, and then play the rest to be on or next to the green in regulation, and leave myself easy up and downs. I don't have the luxury of playing a lot, and practice maybe twice a week tops, so I have to manage my game accordingly.



    A one size fits all approach really does not work if you don't apply it to the context of the course you are playing and the condition you find it in. For example:



    I won't hit a club that will likely put me in a hazard and cost me a stroke.

    I won't take on a carry to a green if I know I can leave myself just short and an easy chip.

    I won't take on a par 5 in 2 unless I feel comfortable that I can put myself within a chip or easy bunker shot - I am not going to purposefully leave myself a 60 yard pitch (for now)



    I will take a longer club if I feel it will leave me with a much easier scoring shot, and the penalty for missing is not severe (ie I can still get the ball to the fringe if I do mishit my tee shot)

    I will take a longer club if the more conservative play is no safer than advancing the ball as far as I can

    I will take a longer club if I am swinging well and am feeling confident in my game
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Srixon z565 Speeder 569 Evo IV SR[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]TaylorMade RBZ 3 wood, [/font][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Matrix Ozik R[/font]
    [font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"]Srixon U65 2 iron, Miyazaki S[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Cobra F6 Hybrid 22 degrees RedTie S[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Srixon z945 5-pw w/ DG s200[/font]
    [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Miura Y 51 and K 56 DG Spinner, Yururi Raw 61 KBS [/font][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]HiRev[/font]
    [font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"]Odyssey O-Works Black 34"[/font]
  • aussiebaussieb Lefty Boomers Posts: 819 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Driver off the tee is always better based on the stats, same as going for the green in two. If you're bringing trouble into play (i.e. OB, hazards, etc), then that's when you choose a shorter club. If your dispersion is so poor with a driver, 3w, whatever that you're spraying it miles offline then maybe you need to tweak your swing and possibly the club. I wouldn't expect to see a guy hit it 230 yards and win too many times on a 7000+ yard course over guys hitting it 260 or better.



    This misconception of "shorter is better" comes from senior citizens on short courses where they can get away with their lack of length, and longer hitters are bringing trouble into play. Cory Pavin (& USGA R&A) used to get frustrated with guys hitting driver wedge from the rough, when he was struggling with long irons and woods into the same holes.



    I do hit 3w to more easily work the ball when there's a slight bend in my landing area, but usually the driver puts me in better position off the tee for every hole.
    Mizuno ST190 9.5*, Accra Tour Zx475 M5, 44.5" ST190 15*, GD Quattrotech 8X, 42.5" Ping G400 19*, Accra XH85, 41" Srixon U65 18*, GD DI-105X, 40", CallawayUT 21*, GD DI-95X, Apex MB 5-P, Modus 130X Calllaway MD Forged 52*, 56* KBS 610 125X, 60* Modus Wedge 125 Toulon San Diego 33.5" 2019 Srixon XV
  • Lancj1Lancj1 Members Posts: 918 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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?




    My decisions are easier. Usually I either play like DJ on a good day or I play like I have never picked a club up before. Those days are the bad days and neve get mentioned. Taking an iron off the Tee or a 3 wood for safety is mute point when you will just top or shank them anyway. One of the flaws of the course management movement - bad golf does not discriminate with clubs!
  • golfpros1golfpros1 Members Posts: 7,584 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Today's low spin 3 woods are so freakishly long it's the smart play the majority of the time. The extra length of the driver will not likely impact score unless you're playing a really long course or a par 5 if you can reach in 2.



    Who are we kidding... HIT THE DRIVER!
    What's In The Bag:
    Golf Jobs
    Driver: Titleist 8.5 w/ Diamana D+ 70 S
    3W: Titleist 915F 15 w/ Diamana D+ 80 S
    3H: Titleist 915H w/ Diamana D+ 90 S
    Irons: 4-GW Taylormade Tour Preferred TP w/ Project X 6.0
    Wedges: Callaway Forged w/ Project X 6.0
    Ball: Taylormade TP5x
    Bag: Titleist
  • chippa13chippa13 Members Posts: 2,383 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    I love internet forums. Where else can you find people trying so hard to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong.
  • jacobEDGEjacobEDGE Members Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    I didn't carry a driver in my bag until I was about 21. Played a Callaway Hawkeye 4-wood off the tee my entire high school career.



    Lately, I've been playing with a TP SLDR 430 driver, and a SLDR S 3-wood. Same size fade with both clubs, which it manageable and I hit 60-70% fairways.



    Driver: 250-260

    3-wood: 230-240



    I just upgraded to a 2017 M1 440 driver, and the 2017 M2 Tour 3 Wood. This driver has a full blown 20-30 yard slice that I have to aim left rough just to catch the right side of the fairway. 3 wood has a slight fade and can even have a straight ball flight every once in a while.



    Driver: 230-240

    3-wood: 250-260



    So I'm currently hitting my 3 wood much more consistent, straighter, and longer than my driver. Which is a shame, because that's one expensive a** club to never take out of the bag.
  • tsecortsecor Loading........ Members Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    if PSG ever remained on point, i think the discussion would have been much better, but....



    its all a matter of perspective.
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members Posts: 3,487 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jul 5, 2017 #203
    tsecor wrote:


    if PSG ever remained on point, i think the discussion would have been much better, but....



    its all a matter of perspective.




    Not agreeing with you and not being on point isn't the same thing.



    For example, look at the guy above you. I'm sure he's a nice guy. But he's a 7 cap and he's claiming to hit 60-70% of fairways with a 3 wood between 240 and 260 (time periods are a bit sketchy, could be 250-260 or 230-260).



    Those are incredible numbers. Unless he is the worst putter in the world and four putts constantly, there is no way he is a 7 cap with those numbers. Notice that all the numbers are round (its 60-70, not 62 or 65. 60.) and its not 237, its 240. The accuracy to distance ratio in that post is delusional. I'm not trying to be mean, but as I explained earlier, these statistics would make him about 3.5% better with his three wood off the tee than Tony Finau, who is the best on Tour (Accuracy adjusted for distance - Finau is 41 feet out of 852 feet on average). Even if we "gear down" to somebody the same distance as he is, he is almost identical to Chez Revie, who is 68% with a 247-ish yard strike.



    So, no, I don't think its valuable to "analyze" this. He has no idea how accurate he is or how far he hits it. His brain is remembering outliers.



    I don't think you can have a productive discussion about equipment if a 7 cap is posting that he is as good off the tee with a 3 wood as a touring professional and everyone else is nodding.



    I don't know why you keep calling me out, but taking advice from posters who clearly have no idea how far or how straight they hit the ball isn't productive. Earlier, we agreed to disagree and you are the one who felt the need to revive an attack on me for some reason.



    If you have an actual reason my content is wrong, please post. If all your going to do i get pissy that I don't agree with you that you have to measure to improve, we can agree to disagree.



    NOTE: I don't think he's lying or he has some sort of sinister motive. I think he actually thinks he's 60-70% at those numbers. I just don't think there is any way that is true.



    EDIT

    If I had those numbers (maybe 4 cap with driver, touring professional with 3 wood) I'd hit 3 wood off the tee too. But we can't have any sort of discussion about which is better when people just make up the numbers. His brain has categorized three wood as "good" and driver as "bad" and then attributed statistics to each.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    Ping g30 driver, various shafts
    Adams tight lies 3 wood
    rest is up for debate
  • MB_VikingMB_Viking Members Posts: 915
    I really had never been much of a proponent when it came to 3w off the tee for anything other than it happened to fit the distance required but this Spring I went out on a day with gusts at 60 km/h. The 8th hole was 550 yards dead straight into the wind. I hit 3w, 3w, 7i and one putt for birdie.



    I'm a solid convert now.
  • morrisminormorrisminor Come back zinc! Come back! Members Posts: 197 ✭✭✭

    tsecor wrote:


    id love to play against someone from the middle of the fairway all day long as they hit out of the rough 15 yards closer to the green. 2 players of = skill, ill take the guy who is in the fairway all day vs the other guy.




    https://www.amazon.c...e/dp/1592407501



    You'd lose almost every time. The study has been done. Being able to hit an iron that is shorter with more loft more than makes up for the lie.



    And it was 20 yards we were discussing, not 15. Two clubs. 8 iron vs. PW. 6 vs. 8.



    We don't have to argue about it. Its a very good book if you haven't read it. The number one factor in how close you hit your irons is how close to the hole you start because it is so much easier to hit a shorter club with higher loft.




    Pinestreet - when I read the thread this post stuck in my mind, and I got the book shortly after so I have not quite finished reading it yet, but going by the pro baseline table I can't see the advantage of 20 yards further in the rough that you're talking about here (unless by rough you are meaning first cut). Is there something further on in the book that I have not yet reached?



    I have got to say that this book has already changed how I play the game, and I had my second lowest round ever yesterday without playing particularly well!
    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
  • ThinkingPlusThinkingPlus South TexasClubWRX Posts: 1,788 ClubWRX


    tsecor wrote:


    id love to play against someone from the middle of the fairway all day long as they hit out of the rough 15 yards closer to the green. 2 players of = skill, ill take the guy who is in the fairway all day vs the other guy.




    https://www.amazon.c...e/dp/1592407501



    You'd lose almost every time. The study has been done. Being able to hit an iron that is shorter with more loft more than makes up for the lie.



    And it was 20 yards we were discussing, not 15. Two clubs. 8 iron vs. PW. 6 vs. 8.



    We don't have to argue about it. Its a very good book if you haven't read it. The number one factor in how close you hit your irons is how close to the hole you start because it is so much easier to hit a shorter club with higher loft.




    Pinestreet - when I read the thread this post stuck in my mind, and I got the book shortly after so I have not quite finished reading it yet, but going by the pro baseline table I can't see the advantage of 20 yards further in the rough that you're talking about here (unless by rough you are meaning first cut). Is there something further on in the book that I have not yet reached?



    I have got to say that this book has already changed how I play the game, and I had my second lowest round ever yesterday without playing particularly well!




    I also recently got the book. I had wanted to for awhile, but it was low on my list. I have not finished it yet so I will not pass judgement on the conclusions.
    Driver: Callaway GBB Epic 9° w/Project X HZRDUS T800 65 gm 6.0 flex
    3W: Callaway Rogue w/Project X Evenflow 5.5 Graphite R-flex
    Hybrids: Callaway Apex 3h, 4h w/MR Kuro Kage 80HY S-flex
    Irons: Maltby TS-1 5i-GW w/KBS Tour R-flex
    Sand Wedge: Titleist Vokey SM7 54/08 M Grind w/KBS Tour R-Flex
    Lob Wedge: Titleist Vokey SM6 58/04 L Grind w/TT Wedge Flex
    Putter: Scotty Cameron Futura X w/Super Stroke Claw 1.0
    Ball: Titleist AVX (wind) or ProV1X (tournaments) in yellow
  • pinestreetgolfpinestreetgolf Members Posts: 3,487 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jul 5, 2017 #207


    tsecor wrote:


    id love to play against someone from the middle of the fairway all day long as they hit out of the rough 15 yards closer to the green. 2 players of = skill, ill take the guy who is in the fairway all day vs the other guy.




    https://www.amazon.c...e/dp/1592407501



    You'd lose almost every time. The study has been done. Being able to hit an iron that is shorter with more loft more than makes up for the lie.



    And it was 20 yards we were discussing, not 15. Two clubs. 8 iron vs. PW. 6 vs. 8.



    We don't have to argue about it. Its a very good book if you haven't read it. The number one factor in how close you hit your irons is how close to the hole you start because it is so much easier to hit a shorter club with higher loft.




    Pinestreet - when I read the thread this post stuck in my mind, and I got the book shortly after so I have not quite finished reading it yet, but going by the pro baseline table I can't see the advantage of 20 yards further in the rough that you're talking about here (unless by rough you are meaning first cut). Is there something further on in the book that I have not yet reached?



    I have got to say that this book has already changed how I play the game, and I had my second lowest round ever yesterday without playing particularly well!




    Yeah, its a game changer. Its somewhere between pages 116 and 122. I only know that because I had to find it for another thread. It boggles my mind that most would rather jut not read it and remain obstinate. He doesn't define "rough" (read this thread, haha) because that means nothing. Its like "Fairway" - it changes course to course. I believe his calculation is 20 yards further and a corresponding loss of proximity.



    EDIT: I do NOT mean most would rather not read it and disagree with it. I get it, and there are valid disagreements. But its such a unique perspective its worth a read for any serious golfer IMO.



    SECOND EDIT: If you like Every Shot Courts, check out its (spiritual) sequal Lowest Score Wins. LSW is about how to apply every shot counts to a course management plan and how to practice using Broadie's approach. Also a fantastic book IMO. It also develops Broadie further, introducing statistics like nGIR (which are more accurate than GIR since it is possible to have a short-game shot that is easier than a two putt on some courses for some players).
    Ping g30 driver, various shafts
    Adams tight lies 3 wood
    rest is up for debate
  • Bad9Bad9 Members Posts: 4,312 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    I haven't gone through all of Every Shot Counts but I do accept the concept and try to follow it. I am more likely to hit the green from 80yds than 100yds or from 140yds than 160yds. **** I'm likely to be closer to the hole with a 50yd. pitch than an 80yd sand wedge.
    Ping G410 Plus 10.5°/Alta CB55 r flex
    Ping G400 7w/Alta CB r flex
    Ping G400 4h/Alta CB r flex
    Ping G400 5 Crossover/Alta CB r flex
    Ping IE1 6-G/Xcaliber r flex
    Ping Glide ES 58°/Xcaliber r flex
    Mizuno Bettinardi C06
  • jacobEDGEjacobEDGE Members Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jul 5, 2017 #209
    Unless he is the worst putter in the world and four putts constantly, there is no way he is a 7 cap with those numbers.




    My putting is pretty decent actually. Not amazing, but I average 1.87 putts per hole on my 28 rounds this season.


    Notice that all the numbers are round (its 60-70, not 62 or 65. 60.) and its not 237, its 240.




    Sorry, since you don't like even, rounded numbers, I'll get a little more detail oriented, in regards to my above post.



    0 putts: 2

    1 putts: 122

    2 putts: 319

    3 putts: 60

    4 putts: 1



    It should be lower, with more 1 putts. I don't have the best GIR percentage, so a lot of the time I'm chipping from the fringe/rough and still 2 putting...where a lower handicap would be getting up and down from being greenside.


    The accuracy to distance ratio in that post is delusional.



    He has no idea how accurate he is or how far he hits it. His brain is remembering outliers.



    but taking advice from posters who clearly have no idea how far or how straight they hit the ball isn't productive.




    That's cute.

    I actually have a very good idea of how accurate and how far I hit it. Not only do I mark my fairways hit, greens in regulation, and putts on my scorecard...I also use Game Golf, which tells me all the information in a nice and neat layout. So I'm pretty **** knowledgeable about my distances. (Why would I even be lying about hitting my driver 240 yards? That's not something to be bragging about.)



    Let's look at my most recent round.



    gkAeq5j.png



    Driver. 50% hit fairways. I pulled it out on a total of 10 holes. My distances ranged from 210 yards, to 307 yards. My average drive with my driver was 237 yards. If you take out the one bomb of a driver, my average drops down to 229.7.



    lM7ab48.png



    Now, let's look at my 3 wood. I took a total of 5 swings with it, 4 being off the tee. Still a 50% fairway hit stat. So, for this one round, it is absolutely equal to my driver as far as accuracy goes. Now let's look at distances. Ranges from 233 to 262 yards. Average being 248 yards.



    Recap:



    Driver accuracy: 50%

    3W accuracy: 50%

    Average driver distance: 237 yards

    Average 3W distance: 248 yards



    Now, take into account these are all new clubs. This most recent round I'm discussing is the 3rd time using these clubs. So do I have all the kinks worked out? No. Do I have my swing completely in sync with my hardware? Nope. But am I "delusional" and completely uneducated about my stats and distances? Not at all.



    You should really try being less of an internet know-it-all and work on your condescending tone.


    If you have an actual reason my content is wrong, please post.




    Just did! image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />


    His brain has categorized three wood as "good" and driver as "bad" and then attributed statistics to each.




    That's simply not true. My driver isn't bad, it's new. And I'm still learning the differences between my new driver (literally a week old), and my previous driver that I had about 50 rounds with.



    FYI, my old driver averaged 57% fairway accuracy and an average driving distance of 258 yards. I love my old driver to pieces, and unless I can start getting similar results with the new guy, my old driver is going back in the bag.



    But in my current bag setup, I'm more confident taking the 3W off the tee. Hitting it anywhere between 210 and 307 yards is much more inconsistent and a complete guess than hitting it between 233 and 262 yards.
  • Ri_RedneckRi_Redneck Leather for Life!! Members Posts: 5,510 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited Jul 5, 2017 #210

    halliedog wrote:
    PSG - "You should search for the thread "should I ditch the three wood" its like War and Peace only more characters and a better ending."



    My point exactly. You have your beliefs (that I don't disagree with), others have theirs, and I have mine. No need to keep arguing the same points over and over again. At some point don't you just have to say "my way is right, and people who don't believe that are wrong, but it's not my business to "convert" them to my way of thinking"? I just think everyone is fighting so hard to back up their own beliefs/experiences that we lose sight of the fact that every course, every player, every hole is different to each player. ****, even the same player on the same course is going to be swinging differently from day to day, and all this factors into the shot they decide to "TRY" to play.



    I think we all know how each other feels, but your statistical evidence might not work for me. I could give examples of an older guy I play with (82) who just doesn't have the strength to hit out of rough, but can pipe a 5 wood off the fairway all day long. This isn't meant as a slam on you, just saying there's different ways to skin a cat for different people. Some of those guys are people who have the same/worse "accuracy" with a 3 wood, but it puts them in a better chance to get up, up, and down.





    **edit** And I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, but it just doesn't work that way in real life all the time. Would my 82 year old be better off 3 wood in the fairway 175, or hitting driver 190 into the rough where he has 0 chance of reaching the green? I'm not a stat geek, so don't even understand "Strokes Gained", but I know that guy can hit it farther when he needs to, but doesn't if he doesn't need to.




    They're not the same. Whether a high cap should carry a 3 wood has nothing to do with how to measure accuracy. This isn't a closed system, people are joining and leaving WRX all the time. If someone posts a topic and asks for thoughts, I'll post mine.



    The issue is posts like this one, which mis-state / don't understand the strokes gained approach. You didn't have to post this you could have just stayed quiet, but now I have two choices:



    1. Correct your silly 190/175 comment or

    2. Say nothing and having people who read this think you have a point.



    How should I respond to that? Strokes gained isn't a "philosophy", its a statistical measurement. Whether you look down at the speedometer or not your car is still going a certain speed, and whether you measure it or not you are gaining and losing strokes on every shot. What you're saying here is that looking at the speedometer is "appropriate" for some but not for all. Since when do we want less information and not more? But its not a "philosophy" you "follow" any more than your car's speed is a "philosophy". It exists. Every time you play. Your just not measuring it.



    I rarely post *until* people say things that simply arn't true, at which point I correct them.



    You just self-confessed to not understand it and then took a pot shot at it. How can you do that if you don't understand it?



    Opinions are good. They lead to good discussion. Saying "I don't understand Strokes gained but it's wrong sometimes and not for everyone" is silly. If you don't understand it you have no idea. I'm always going to correct that. I don't want people reading things (for example, that a HHer shouldn't hit 3w) when it is *directly contrary* to published studies. One is somebody spouting conventional wisdom golf nonsense and one is peer reviewed and probably accurate. I'm always going to correct it when I see it. I've read a ton of academic articles about the process of getting better, and I'm going to make my arguments just like a club builder would or anyone else.



    I expect if someone posted 100 times that a club should be shafted with elmer's glue they'd get corrected 100 times. Same here. The only difference is for some reason golfers don't realize there is a mountain of literature on the process of improvement and just try to wing it themselves. But most of these home-grown approaches are just as valid as shafting your new hybrid with Elmer's.



    "Everyone is different. Epoxy might work for you but elmer's works for me."



    EDIT

    A whole lot of people on this site rail against "conventional golf" - the jacked lofts, the OEMs, the product release cycles, the non-stop parroting of how to hit this type of shot or that type of shot, etc... etc... They will spend thousnads of dollars and hundreds of hours and yet if you suggest to them that maybe some other conventional golf wisdom - like that there was a study done at Columbia which showed putting skill doesn't matter whatsoever above a 5 cap, and that there was a study done at Purdue that found virtually every player below a 3 cap avoided technical thoughts while playing and virtually every player above a 10 thought nothing but tecnical thoughts - and they call you nuts and refuse to read any of the literature. Absolutely bizzare.






    I honestly think this thread would be done if it weren't for comments like the one above in red. PSG, Halliedog made a statement about an 82 yr old playing shorter to avoid deep rough, from which there was "no chance of reaching the green". Now if the rough in this situation actually restricts the golfers ability to reach the green it seems that would be considered a "stroke costing hazard", which you have professed in previous posts, is actually worth avoiding. Yet you called this a "silly comment" in need of correction.I believe if you could possibly refrain from this type of thing, we could all get on with our daily lives. AND, continue to enjoy playing the way we see fit whether others agree with it or not.



    And now you're beating up on JacobEDGE because he rounds off his yardage instead of lasering everything (talk about a slow round?) and you can't understand that he has a new Dr/3w in which the driver doesn't work for him and the 3w does. You seem to always forget that it's not just degrees offline with people. there are many out there who slice their driver off the planet while hitting a slight draw with their 3w. All because the driver just doesn't fit them.



    It's not the information your presenting that is getting on peoples nerves, it's the presentation.



    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
  • tsecortsecor Loading........ Members Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭✭✭

    tsecor wrote:


    if PSG ever remained on point, i think the discussion would have been much better, but....



    its all a matter of perspective.




    Not agreeing with you and not being on point isn't the same thing.



    For example, look at the guy above you. I'm sure he's a nice guy. But he's a 7 cap and he's claiming to hit 60-70% of fairways with a 3 wood between 240 and 260 (time periods are a bit sketchy, could be 250-260 or 230-260).



    Those are incredible numbers. Unless he is the worst putter in the world and four putts constantly, there is no way he is a 7 cap with those numbers. Notice that all the numbers are round (its 60-70, not 62 or 65. 60.) and its not 237, its 240. The accuracy to distance ratio in that post is delusional. I'm not trying to be mean, but as I explained earlier, these statistics would make him about 3.5% better with his three wood off the tee than Tony Finau, who is the best on Tour (Accuracy adjusted for distance - Finau is 41 feet out of 852 feet on average). Even if we "gear down" to somebody the same distance as he is, he is almost identical to Chez Revie, who is 68% with a 247-ish yard strike.



    So, no, I don't think its valuable to "analyze" this. He has no idea how accurate he is or how far he hits it. His brain is remembering outliers.



    I don't think you can have a productive discussion about equipment if a 7 cap is posting that he is as good off the tee with a 3 wood as a touring professional and everyone else is nodding.



    I don't know why you keep calling me out, but taking advice from posters who clearly have no idea how far or how straight they hit the ball isn't productive. Earlier, we agreed to disagree and you are the one who felt the need to revive an attack on me for some reason.



    If you have an actual reason my content is wrong, please post. If all your going to do i get pissy that I don't agree with you that you have to measure to improve, we can agree to disagree.



    NOTE: I don't think he's lying or he has some sort of sinister motive. I think he actually thinks he's 60-70% at those numbers. I just don't think there is any way that is true.



    EDIT

    If I had those numbers (maybe 4 cap with driver, touring professional with 3 wood) I'd hit 3 wood off the tee too. But we can't have any sort of discussion about which is better when people just make up the numbers. His brain has categorized three wood as "good" and driver as "bad" and then attributed statistics to each.
    its not an attack but you seem overly sensitive, I was nearly pointing out you have taken the discussion in many different directions and taken us off point multiple times. no big deal but your theory is just that....a theory drowned in statistics that mean nothing to the average golfer....you say hitting from the rough behind a tree is statistically more accurate than being in a fairway because you hit it longer....i disagree.....its like saying air travel is safer than automobiles....it is by the numbers but when planes start flying 5 feet away from one another, let me know

Leave a Comment

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