3w distance off the fairway

[slc247]

^^^^ You were standing on the edge, I pushed...my bad

[pinestreetgolf]

This is madness LOL. This thread is in the full blown Tyson zone

 

My average should be affected by shots I DONT hit??? That is absolutely priceless.

 

I'm a Friggin 1-index! I don't want to hit 3 wood off a downhill lie, or a lie in the rough, but I should factor those into my average 3 wood distance, under the context of lacking the skill to hit those shots?

 

I'm gonna need Good Will Hunting to figure out my average with each club. I've never calculated a probabalistic shot average of shots I might have hit

 

Of course not. You don't "calculate" shots you don't hit into your average. How could you possibly have gotten that from my post?

 

People with a good idea of how to manage a course AND speed have long 3 wood carry averages because they don't hit shots that result in awful contact.

 

People with no idea how to manage a course AND speed have bad 3 wood carry averages because they hit shots that result in awful contact.

 

"Used to calculate" and "effected by" are not synonymous. Michael Phelps averages about a silver medal in every event he competes in. If he tried to compete in skiing his average would go down. Not competing in skiing effects his medal per event average because he's good at swimming (And knows it) and can't ski. Similarly, your 3 wood carry average is determined more by what shots you attempt than your raw speed.

 

But of course you don't "use shots you don't hit" to calculate your average. That's silly and stupid. However, your 3 wood average is certainly influenced by when and if you pull it out of your bag. That's obvious. If you hit 3 wood every single time you are 250+ out regardless of lie your average will go down. Obvious. So, yes, it is influenced by shots you don't hit. If you leave 3 wood in the bag when you shouldn't hit it, your average will get better.

 

I am saying that the entire focus here for average is on speed and trackman bays and those are not the primary contribution to a good on-course average. A really strong on-course average is much more about knowing your game than how fast you can whoosh a club through the air.

[Rosco1216]

This is madness LOL. This thread is in the full blown Tyson zone

 

My average should be affected by shots I DONT hit??? That is absolutely priceless.

 

I'm a Friggin 1-index! I don't want to hit 3 wood off a downhill lie, or a lie in the rough, but I should factor those into my average 3 wood distance, under the context of lacking the skill to hit those shots?

 

I'm gonna need Good Will Hunting to figure out my average with each club. I've never calculated a probabalistic shot average of shots I might have hit

 

Of course not. You don't "calculate" shots you don't hit into your average. How could you possibly have gotten that from my post?

 

People with a good idea of how to manage a course AND speed have long 3 wood carry averages because they don't hit shots that result in awful contact.

 

People with no idea how to manage a course AND speed have bad 3 wood carry averages because they hit shots that result in awful contact.

 

"Used to calculate" and "effected by" are not synonymous. Michael Phelps averages about a silver medal in every event he competes in. If he tried to compete in skiing his average would go down. Not competing in skiing effects his medal per event average because he's good at swimming (And knows it) and can't ski. Similarly, your 3 wood carry average is determined more by what shots you attempt than your raw speed.

 

But of course you don't "use shots you don't hit" to calculate your average. That's silly and stupid. However, your 3 wood average is certainly influenced by when and if you pull it out of your bag. That's obvious. If you hit 3 wood every single time you are 250+ out regardless of lie your average will go down. Obvious. So, yes, it is influenced by shots you don't hit. If you leave 3 wood in the bag when you shouldn't hit it, your average will get better.

 

I am saying that the entire focus here for average is on speed and trackman bays and those are not the primary contribution to a good on-course average. A really strong on-course average is much more about knowing your game than how fast you can whoosh a club through the air.

 

Are you sure you're not trolling? Whooshing a club through the air is ridiculous. Trackman average give you a true average with "ideal" conditions. You use THAT average to take to the course and modify accordingly based on the conditions and variables you encounter on the course.

[CactusGolf]

230 for me. I just don't feel comfortable hitting a fairway wood off the deck. Distance is 250 off the tee.

[deadsolid...shank]

I'm lost.

Because of this thread I think I'll get rid of my three wood cause I'm not sure what numbers to use to calculate how far I hit it. ��

 

By the way I pounded one today, got it out there about 190, followed up with a 275 yard 21* hybrid, have to love playing in sustained 35 mph wind!

[pinestreetgolf]

This is madness LOL. This thread is in the full blown Tyson zone

 

My average should be affected by shots I DONT hit??? That is absolutely priceless.

 

I'm a Friggin 1-index! I don't want to hit 3 wood off a downhill lie, or a lie in the rough, but I should factor those into my average 3 wood distance, under the context of lacking the skill to hit those shots?

 

I'm gonna need Good Will Hunting to figure out my average with each club. I've never calculated a probabalistic shot average of shots I might have hit

 

Of course not. You don't "calculate" shots you don't hit into your average. How could you possibly have gotten that from my post?

 

People with a good idea of how to manage a course AND speed have long 3 wood carry averages because they don't hit shots that result in awful contact.

 

People with no idea how to manage a course AND speed have bad 3 wood carry averages because they hit shots that result in awful contact.

 

"Used to calculate" and "effected by" are not synonymous. Michael Phelps averages about a silver medal in every event he competes in. If he tried to compete in skiing his average would go down. Not competing in skiing effects his medal per event average because he's good at swimming (And knows it) and can't ski. Similarly, your 3 wood carry average is determined more by what shots you attempt than your raw speed.

 

But of course you don't "use shots you don't hit" to calculate your average. That's silly and stupid. However, your 3 wood average is certainly influenced by when and if you pull it out of your bag. That's obvious. If you hit 3 wood every single time you are 250+ out regardless of lie your average will go down. Obvious. So, yes, it is influenced by shots you don't hit. If you leave 3 wood in the bag when you shouldn't hit it, your average will get better.

 

I am saying that the entire focus here for average is on speed and trackman bays and those are not the primary contribution to a good on-course average. A really strong on-course average is much more about knowing your game than how fast you can whoosh a club through the air.

 

Are you sure you're not trolling? Whooshing a club through the air is ridiculous. Trackman average give you a true average with "ideal" conditions. You use THAT average to take to the course and modify accordingly based on the conditions and variables you encounter on the course.

 

You just said exactly what I did. Those who are better at "modifying accordingly based on variables you encounter" will have excellent averages vs those who don't.

[Rosco1216]

No. Better at modifying will have excellent averages? That doesn't make any sense. I think you mean less discrepancy? Now THAT could support and argument based skill level. Obviously the better ball striker will have a tighter distance discrepancy. But that's not what people are discussing. But if that was what you were trying to get at, the novels trying to explain didnt go well.

 

I have an average carry of every club based off trackman. In to the wind, I club up accordingly, down wind I club down. Bad lie or rough, club up. Endless variables to list of course. Those situations don't change anyone's "averages".

[ShowMe]

232 average from the fairway using my Garmin GPS to measure each shot and provide the average. I don't find it that much more difficult to hit my 3W from the deck vs. from a tee. 915f 3+ set to 14.25*.

[pinestreetgolf]

No. Better at modifying will have excellent averages? That doesn't make any sense. I think you mean less discrepancy? Now THAT could support and argument based skill level. Obviously the better ball striker will have a tighter distance discrepancy. But that's not what people are discussing. But if that was what you were trying to get at, the novels trying to explain didnt go well.

 

I have an average carry of every club based off trackman. In to the wind, I club up accordingly, down wind I club down. Bad lie or rough, club up. Endless variables to list of course. Those situations don't change anyone's "averages".

 

Of course they change the averages. If someone makes bad decisions with when to hit 3 wood their average will be worse because they will make worse contact.

 

I think you are discussing some sort of theoretical "club distance" in the sense of "I choose 9 from 150". When I say "effect average" I mean the literal on course weighted average over a given sample period. Not a theoretical average.

 

My point is that there is a massive divergence between the average you are talking about (trackman bay) and the average I am talking about (one actually measured on the course). The chief factor in how much lower (ie worse) the actual average is is mental not mechanical i.e. Choosing spots correctly. This is the massive difference between off ground and off tee distance arguments. Judging lie and target is much harder off the ground with a three wood then off the tee with a driver. As a result, trackman bay data is MUCH less useful with 3w off ground than driver (and why I believe WRX distance claims off tee but not off ground).

[Rosco1216]

No. Better at modifying will have excellent averages? That doesn't make any sense. I think you mean less discrepancy? Now THAT could support and argument based skill level. Obviously the better ball striker will have a tighter distance discrepancy. But that's not what people are discussing. But if that was what you were trying to get at, the novels trying to explain didnt go well.

 

I have an average carry of every club based off trackman. In to the wind, I club up accordingly, down wind I club down. Bad lie or rough, club up. Endless variables to list of course. Those situations don't change anyone's "averages".

 

Of course they change the averages. If someone makes bad decisions with when to hit 3 wood their average will be worse because they will make worse contact.

 

I think you are discussing some sort of theoretical "club distance" in the sense of "I choose 9 from 150". When I say "effect average" I mean the literal on course weighted average over a given sample period. Not a theoretical average.

 

My point is that there is a massive divergence between the average you are talking about (trackman bay) and the average I am talking about (one actually measured on the course). The chief factor in how much lower (ie worse) the actual average is is mental not mechanical i.e. Choosing spots correctly. This is the massive difference between off ground and off tee distance arguments. Judging lie and target is much harder off the ground with a three wood then off the tee with a driver. As a result, trackman bay data is MUCH less useful with 3w off ground than driver (and why I believe WRX distance claims off tee but not off ground).

My goodness. Bad decisions will change your average?

You're argument is complertely flawed. Your response to my post yesterday about a lie out of a bunker was that its silly to use in calculating average but that is what you keep implying must be used. Literal on course average over a given sample is strictly like taking an arithmetic mean. But that is flawed if trying to apply to golf because arithmetic doesn't have other variables affecting any outcome. Weighted average is not applicable either. "Importance" of a shot is not a multiply factor relative to golf.

[SurfDuffer]

Thought about it, I have no idea how far I hit a 3W off the deck. I never need to hit that shot.

 

At nearly 60 years old, I've only been on a launch monitor three times. Once at Pine Valley, once with Jim Mclean and once at a golf shop. I've been to the Nationals in the Long Driving Championship.

 

Short answer would be a lot shorter than in my late 40's and early 50's. I'd post the driver and 3W swing speeds from those days but the dicks here would harass me and call me a liar.

 

I like people who don't read the entire thread and jump right to the end.

 

"The dicks" issue isn't with your swing speed. We've gone over this ten times. I don't doubt people can mash it off a tee, where its all about speed. Off the deck, especially on average, is about WAY more than speed. That's why its so much harder. That's why,in this particular thread, I'm calling BS and not doing it in driver threads (or 3w off a tee threads). Off a tee and off the ground are worlds apart in terms of skill required to translate speed to distance.

 

I even give most people the benefit of the doubt. But 279 average *carry* with a 16.5* club? Some of these posts are from another planet.

 

Off a tee I'll hit a 3-wood 265 give or take depending on the wind. Off the turf there is no telling since its rare for me to hit a quality shot with a 3-wood off the turf. Its a mystery to me. Its a love hate thing.

 

My most recent 3-wood attempt off the turf was Sunday. After a perfect tee shot on a par 5 I was left with 250 to the pin of a very slight side hill lie. It was a little too far for my 2 or 3-iron and I was in such a good position that I'd have felt like a sissy not to at least try to put it on the green. Hit the 3-wood and the push I hit went wide right leaving me right of the bunker right of the green and almost OB......a little farther than pin high and short sided with the entire green going down hill. Doomed I made double from there. Delicate flop shot that went into the bunker.......followed by short sided bunker shot to a green sloping away. Chip on. 2-putt.

 

Should have layed up.

 

 

Is that google earth? How did you know where to start the line and where to stop it? Did you have it with you on the course? I only ask because its really clean and nice looking. if its a golf program, what program is it? I want to steal it.

 

It seems like the mistake would be attempting the flop. You can't afford to hit that short, ever. You should have had a 10 foot birdie putt, thats a big green. Aim to the front left and hit a simple spinny pitch. 3 wood was the correct play, trying to flop it near the pin and having that bunker in play was insanity. I've never played the hole (obviously) but trying to flop it over what looks to be a deep bunker that you simply cannot afford to be short into was ridiculous. Great wood shot, just take your 15 feet back up the hill for biride. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Google Earth. I know where to start and stop the lines because I've played the hole a few hundred times. If I'm off by 2 yards I'd be surprised. Also lasered it when I hit the shot and pretty spot on. What you don't see on google earth is the the green slopes to the center from both sides and dumps to the front. The pin was about 5 paces on.....on the front right side of the green. If the pin had been where the people on the green are it would have been fairly easy to make par. Being short sided the flop shot over the bunker was the only hope of landing it close and holding the green. The mistake was coming up 2 feet short. A pitch towards the flag from where I was would never have held the green. I would have had to pitch away from the flag and then have a horrendous putt back. I was pretty much doomed when I missed that far right.

[Exactice808]

Google Earth. I know where to start and stop the lines because I've played the hole a few hundred times. If I'm off by 2 yards I'd be surprised. Also lasered it when I hit the shot and pretty spot on. What you don't see on google earth is the the green slopes to the center from both sides and dumps to the front. Being short sided the flop shot was the only hope of landing it close and holding the green. The mistake was coming up 2 feet short. A pitch towards the flag from where I was would never have held the green. I would have had to pitch away from the flag and then have a horrendous putt back. I was pretty much doomed when I missed that far right.

 

*edit* this is a serious questions and in no way a troll question btw.

 

SurfDuffer, to entertain, Pinestreet and myself, Can I ask you a questions, did you calculate, that if "you missed that far right you were doomed"? Or did you just see 250 yards, I can hit this shot and went for it.

 

This is where Pinestreet and I (sorta) talk about the averages, If we know are distances to specifics. and say I have a tendency to leak shots right is "doom" would it be better if I laid up? I hate to be this guy in this thread as I screwed it up already, as honestly this question has NOTHING to do with this thread.

 

But just asking, "Generically" speaking the 250 into the green (would seem like) a Hero Shot, but the sensible shot would be to lay up and put yourself into the preferred location and try to score from there?

 

Again this is ALL Hindsight, but I guess for Pinestreet, the point is if we looked at our shots "Objectively" like this, we would make better choices on the course, rather than sayin we hit it 270+ yards 3wood from anywhere on the course LOL!

[pinestreetgolf]

No. Better at modifying will have excellent averages? That doesn't make any sense. I think you mean less discrepancy? Now THAT could support and argument based skill level. Obviously the better ball striker will have a tighter distance discrepancy. But that's not what people are discussing. But if that was what you were trying to get at, the novels trying to explain didnt go well.

 

I have an average carry of every club based off trackman. In to the wind, I club up accordingly, down wind I club down. Bad lie or rough, club up. Endless variables to list of course. Those situations don't change anyone's "averages".

 

Of course they change the averages. If someone makes bad decisions with when to hit 3 wood their average will be worse because they will make worse contact.

 

I think you are discussing some sort of theoretical "club distance" in the sense of "I choose 9 from 150". When I say "effect average" I mean the literal on course weighted average over a given sample period. Not a theoretical average.

 

My point is that there is a massive divergence between the average you are talking about (trackman bay) and the average I am talking about (one actually measured on the course). The chief factor in how much lower (ie worse) the actual average is is mental not mechanical i.e. Choosing spots correctly. This is the massive difference between off ground and off tee distance arguments. Judging lie and target is much harder off the ground with a three wood then off the tee with a driver. As a result, trackman bay data is MUCH less useful with 3w off ground than driver (and why I believe WRX distance claims off tee but not off ground).

My goodness. Bad decisions will change your average?

You're argument is complertely flawed. Your response to my post yesterday about a lie out of a bunker was that its silly to use in calculating average but that is what you keep implying must be used. Literal on course average over a given sample is strictly like taking an arithmetic mean. But that is flawed if trying to apply to golf because arithmetic doesn't have other variables affecting any outcome. Weighted average is not applicable either. "Importance" of a shot is not a multiply factor relative to golf.

 

That isn't what I said. What I said was that if an idiot decides to hit 3 wood out of a bad bunker lie it will make his actual 3 wood average worse. If a smart player doesn't hit 3 wood there, it makes his 3 wood average better. While you don't use decisions in actually making the arithmatical calculation of your average, your decisions absolutely influence it. Hence, your decision making on the course (i.e. picking your spots) is more important than your speed when it comes to 3 wood off the ground in determining your actual distance when you objectively analyze your numbers.

 

Player A and Player B have identical swings but different brains, and entering this hole they have identical 3 wood averages. Player A is faced with a fairway bunker lie and a lip. He isn't sure if he can clear it or not. He decides to hit 3 hybrid over the lip down near the green, but shorter. Player B is faced with the identical fairway bunker lie and lip. He isn't sure if he can clear it or not. Player B decides to be aggressive and rip 3 wood to try to clear the lip and get on the green.

 

Player A and Player B will have different 3 wood averages after this. The decision of whether or not to hit 3 wood has influenced the average. If Player B is skilled enough and has made a correct decision, he will have a higher average. If Player B is not skilled enough and has made a poor decision, he will have a lower average. Either way, a significant factor in his actual average, compared to his speed in a trackman bay, is his intelligence on the course. You wouldn't "use decisions you don't make" (which you said to make a relatively simple principle of statistics seem absurd - that omissions or inclusions in the sample are a vital part of any calculation) in calculating the average, but decisions absolutely influence the actual average.

 

Now, your point is that actual average is useless. What can that tell us about our game?

 

If you are hitting the ball 270 in a trackman bay and your GPS, on-course actual average is 225 you are probably making some stupid decisions. If your trackman bay average is 260 and your on course average is 255 you are probably making good decisions. This is incredibly useful information because it tells us about the differing qualties of strike between "perfect" conditions and on-course conditions for that individual player which tells that player quite a bit about how well (or poorly) he is translating his talent and mechanics into proximity to the hole. If he is lagging his trackman badly he's likely pulling 3 wood when its stupid to pull 3 wood OR he isn't being aggressive enough and leaving it in the bag when he should hit it. I don't think the people in this thread (9 of the first 14 better than tour) realize that they are likely not translating that trackman session at EVEN CLOSE a 60% efficiency rate off the ground. I think they are conflating it with translation of trackman to tee shots, which is a much tighter correlation.

 

Hence my repeated, repeated, repeated comment in this thread that while I think a lot of these posters *Are capable* of significant 3 wood carry averages during actual play, I I don't think many of them are actually doing it. Especially when you consider the studies on memory decay and how bad golfers are remembering their own rounds. They choose to hit 3 wood when they shouldn't or they choose to lay off 3 wood when they should hit it. Their actual course average deviates significantly from what they are capable of because of these issues. Hence, my doubts. This phenomenon (a decay of average distance when moving to the actual course based on when you do and do not choose to hit a particular club) exists to a much, much less degree when considering distance off the tee.

 

EDIT: Did you read the study linked to a few pages ago that discussed all this?

 

SECOND EDIT: If we really wanted to be accurate, instead of "average" we would use "strokes gained" which is simply the average number of strokes taken to the hole the ball after the shot. But "average" is basically the same thing when discussing only length.

[Break81]

Launch monitor tells me if I catch it perfect I can fly it 240 ish. Real world conditions I fly it 225 ish. I would need some elevation change or a good tail wind to get that 240 BS.

[royourboat]

No. Better at modifying will have excellent averages? That doesn't make any sense. I think you mean less discrepancy? Now THAT could support and argument based skill level. Obviously the better ball striker will have a tighter distance discrepancy. But that's not what people are discussing. But if that was what you were trying to get at, the novels trying to explain didnt go well.

 

I have an average carry of every club based off trackman. In to the wind, I club up accordingly, down wind I club down. Bad lie or rough, club up. Endless variables to list of course. Those situations don't change anyone's "averages".

 

TLDR; Rosco I agree with you and I think you got to bottom of this novel. You and everyone else I know uses the environmentally neutral carry distance as a starting point to plan shots, not the on course average distance hit.

 

I think the novels Pinestreet has written attest to using the average you hit on course, affected by the environment as an average to display fairway wood prowess here. I see his point that it's a fairer assessment of a golfers distance for the purpose of a thread like this, but it really muddied the waters in that it seems as if Pinestreet suggests you use it to plan all on course shots with (in conjunction with or what seems to be instead of the environmentally neutral carry distance).

 

This seems stupid to me because of course the freaking environment and your contact gives you a shorter average distance, you determine whether to choose the club in the first place with that in mind (water carry's etc) but a lower marker shouldn't plan on a mishit for his distance because a good ballstriker has a large percentage of strikes landing at the environmentally neutral carry distance or close to, sure there is reasonably horizontal oval shaped dispersion but its mostly left and right with a slight diagonal skew for short right and longer left (for RH).

 

As for hitting fairway, honestly I can f****** nail a TEE CBPro 14.5 (which has a deep face) off lots of lies, but I only really hit it on sensible ones and when the hole calls for it, naturally I adjust based on various environmental variables, but as a single figure cap on golfWRX I plan on flushing it.

[SurfDuffer]

Google Earth. I know where to start and stop the lines because I've played the hole a few hundred times. If I'm off by 2 yards I'd be surprised. Also lasered it when I hit the shot and pretty spot on. What you don't see on google earth is the the green slopes to the center from both sides and dumps to the front. Being short sided the flop shot was the only hope of landing it close and holding the green. The mistake was coming up 2 feet short. A pitch towards the flag from where I was would never have held the green. I would have had to pitch away from the flag and then have a horrendous putt back. I was pretty much doomed when I missed that far right.

 

*edit* this is a serious questions and in no way a troll question btw.

 

SurfDuffer, to entertain, Pinestreet and myself, Can I ask you a questions, did you calculate, that if "you missed that far right you were doomed"? Or did you just see 250 yards, I can hit this shot and went for it.

 

This is where Pinestreet and I (sorta) talk about the averages, If we know are distances to specifics. and say I have a tendency to leak shots right is "doom" would it be better if I laid up? I hate to be this guy in this thread as I screwed it up already, as honestly this question has NOTHING to do with this thread.

 

But just asking, "Generically" speaking the 250 into the green (would seem like) a Hero Shot, but the sensible shot would be to lay up and put yourself into the preferred location and try to score from there?

 

Again this is ALL Hindsight, but I guess for Pinestreet, the point is if we looked at our shots "Objectively" like this, we would make better choices on the course, rather than sayin we hit it 270+ yards 3wood from anywhere on the course LOL!

 

Yes I did calculate the risks. Like I said I've played this hole hundreds of times. On this day it was playing 540 with a slight right to left breeze. I occasionally get on in two either with an iron or a wood. I rarely make worse than par on this hole. On this occasion I put the ball in the worst possible place given the pin position. The choice for my second is always a dilemma on this hole. I was in one of the best locations you can be after my tee shot. Any further right and I'd be on a slope in the fairway with a significant side hiller forcing a layup. A little further forward and I'm on a slight downslope. When the hole is playing down wind I can occasionally catch that downslope leaving me a second from 230. As you can see there were a lot of options for my second. A 7 iron would have taken me near the end of the main fairway with a wedge in for the 3rd. A 3 iron for my second would have put me in that bit of short grass right in front of the green. 2 iron might have gotten me barely on the green or would have rolled back off leaving me where the three iron would have left me anyway. The lie was ball just slightly above my feet and I think that's what fooled me into hitting it where I did. It was a pretty bad miss considering I was aiming at a point left of the pin about where the people on the green are standing in the picture.

[North Butte]

SurfDuffer is like myself in playing one course many, many times. In that situation any knowledge of what you might average on a Trackman would be redundant. You've got years of data already accumulated in your brain about how likely a certain outcome is from a certain spot.

 

I think one skill that high level tournament golfers need is how to quickly figure out a mapping of their knowledge of their own tendencies onto an unfamiliar course in maybe one practice round. Some of the best players I've known can "learn" a course in a 4-hour practice round with a laser and a notebook and make smarter decisions than I could do after playing there 20 times.

[Exactice808]

Google Earth. I know where to start and stop the lines because I've played the hole a few hundred times. If I'm off by 2 yards I'd be surprised. Also lasered it when I hit the shot and pretty spot on. What you don't see on google earth is the the green slopes to the center from both sides and dumps to the front. Being short sided the flop shot was the only hope of landing it close and holding the green. The mistake was coming up 2 feet short. A pitch towards the flag from where I was would never have held the green. I would have had to pitch away from the flag and then have a horrendous putt back. I was pretty much doomed when I missed that far right.

 

*edit* this is a serious questions and in no way a troll question btw.

 

SurfDuffer, to entertain, Pinestreet and myself, Can I ask you a questions, did you calculate, that if "you missed that far right you were doomed"? Or did you just see 250 yards, I can hit this shot and went for it.

 

This is where Pinestreet and I (sorta) talk about the averages, If we know are distances to specifics. and say I have a tendency to leak shots right is "doom" would it be better if I laid up? I hate to be this guy in this thread as I screwed it up already, as honestly this question has NOTHING to do with this thread.

 

But just asking, "Generically" speaking the 250 into the green (would seem like) a Hero Shot, but the sensible shot would be to lay up and put yourself into the preferred location and try to score from there?

 

Again this is ALL Hindsight, but I guess for Pinestreet, the point is if we looked at our shots "Objectively" like this, we would make better choices on the course, rather than sayin we hit it 270+ yards 3wood from anywhere on the course LOL!

 

Yes I did calculate the risks. Like I said I've played this hole hundreds of times. On this day it was playing 540 with a slight right to left breeze. I occasionally get on in two either with an iron or a wood. I rarely make worse than par on this hole. On this occasion I put the ball in the worst possible place given the pin position. The choice for my second is always a dilemma on this hole. I was in one of the best locations you can be after my tee shot. Any further right and I'd be on a slope in the fairway with a significant side hiller forcing a layup. A little further forward and I'm on a slight downslope. When the hole is playing down wind I can occasionally catch that downslope leaving me a second from 230. As you can see there were a lot of options for my second. A 7 iron would have taken me near the end of the main fairway with a wedge in for the 3rd. A 3 iron for my second would have put me in that bit of short grass right in front of the green. 2 iron might have gotten me barely on the green or would have rolled back off leaving me where the three iron would have left me anyway. The lie was ball just slightly above my feet and I think that's what fooled me into hitting it where I did. It was a pretty bad miss considering I was aiming at a point left of the pin about where the people on the green are standing in the picture.

 

Gotcha, as I stated, for "entertainment" purposes, I needed to ask, to validate, pinestreet and I's thoughts about, the choices we make, since you know your game, know the hole, you are familiar with the risk vs reward and indeed it was just a bad shot, rather than a bad choice.

 

Its funny, I have a hole I play some what often, its a shorter Par5 into the wind, about 430, if I hit a good driver I should be about 180-200 yards out leaving a 200-230 yard shot into the green The problem is its well guarded bunkers in the front, treeline to the right so if you leave it right you are in jail (my miss on longer shots) Its a 3 wood or a layup on this hole 9/10 times, if there is no wind 1/10 its flag hunting, but still does not guarantee a birdie or eagle.

 

With that I think I eagled this twice, birdie it a bunch of times, pars and a LOT more Others, bogeys, doubles and triples. LOL.....mostly from the ego wanting to go for it, But I know the hole I am "pretty confident" about my second shot..... just....well.... Choke-a-saraus............

[FirePro]

off the deck 250-265 depending on how well I strike it off the deck, 260-275 off the tee again it depends how well the strike is

 

PS, Seldom hit the 3 wood off the deck, would most likely step into my 2 iron to get it close to the green

[pinestreetgolf]

No. Better at modifying will have excellent averages? That doesn't make any sense. I think you mean less discrepancy? Now THAT could support and argument based skill level. Obviously the better ball striker will have a tighter distance discrepancy. But that's not what people are discussing. But if that was what you were trying to get at, the novels trying to explain didnt go well.

 

I have an average carry of every club based off trackman. In to the wind, I club up accordingly, down wind I club down. Bad lie or rough, club up. Endless variables to list of course. Those situations don't change anyone's "averages".

 

TLDR; Rosco I agree with you and I think you got to bottom of this novel. You and everyone else I know uses the environmentally neutral carry distance as a starting point to plan shots, not the on course average distance hit.

 

I think the novels Pinestreet has written attest to using the average you hit on course, affected by the environment as an average to display fairway wood prowess here. I see his point that it's a fairer assessment of a golfers distance for the purpose of a thread like this, but it really muddied the waters in that it seems as if Pinestreet suggests you use it to plan all on course shots with (in conjunction with or what seems to be instead of the environmentally neutral carry distance).

 

This seems stupid to me because of course the freaking environment and your contact gives you a shorter average distance, you determine whether to choose the club in the first place with that in mind (water carry's etc) but a lower marker shouldn't plan on a mishit for his distance because a good ballstriker has a large percentage of strikes landing at the environmentally neutral carry distance or close to, sure there is reasonably horizontal oval shaped dispersion but its mostly left and right with a slight diagonal skew for short right and longer left (for RH).

 

As for hitting fairway, honestly I can f****** nail a TEE CBPro 14.5 (which has a deep face) off lots of lies, but I only really hit it on sensible ones and when the hole calls for it, naturally I adjust based on various environmental variables, but as a single figure cap on golfWRX I plan on flushing it.

 

First, I appreciate you not using words like "absurd" and "stupid" in your post.

 

This is basically this thread:

 

"I can shoot 60% from 3! I did it three months ago in an empty gym with a perfectly inflated ball and a brand new rim and no defense"

"Awesome! What was your 3 point percentage in the game yesterday, when you have to decide when to shoot and when your guarded, etc...?"

"I don't know I didn't keep track. But I'm a 60% shooter."

"yeah, OK, but what did you shoot in the game?"

"Didn't you hear me idiot? I shoot 60% from 3"

 

"" it seems as if Pinestreet suggests you use it to plan all on course shots with (in conjunction with or what seems to be instead of the environmentally neutral carry distance).""

 

I didn't say that or suggest it. Using actual average to plan shots would be insane. In fact, I specifically said "Why is this useful?" and then wrote a paragraph about how it IS NOT useful to plan on course shots with it. It is a barometer to tell if you are making smart on course decisions because if you are losing a ton of distance from a non-course, perfect condition i.e. trackman bay or whatever to your actual average you are likely hitting a 3 wood when you shouldn't.

 

If you don't know your actual average you can't make that comparison.

 

"You and everyone else I know uses the environmentally neutral carry distance as a starting point to plan shots, not the on course average distance hit."

 

Yup. But how in the world do you know if you are doing a good job or a bad job planning shots if you have no actual data point to compare your environmental neutral shots to? You can't. You know you hit it X in a trackman bay, and you try to use your brain to remember what you did on the course and you remember it very badly (according to the 2015 study).

 

Actual on course average is what it is. And the "Averages" in this thread are silly for 90% of them. I don't know which 90% are wrong and which 10% are telling the truth, but golfers dramatically over-estimate the translation of trackman bay/neutral condition distance to on course actual distance off the deck. They do this because golfers tend to measure their tee shots, and tee shots translate very very well from a trackman bay to the course. There is much less "decay" (to use the word from the study) from off the tee neutral numbers/off the tee course numbers compared to off the deck neutral numbers/off the deck course numbers.

 

I don't think people appreciate the fact that thier inability to translate their trackman average to actual average is primarily a course management issue when it comes to shots off the deck. This is why I am not impressed by trackman bay numbers when discussing actual average off the deck. Most players experience extreme decay in the woods and long irons when moved away from ideal, non course conditions. Those same players experience relatively little decay with tee shots and short irons.

 

Of COURSE you use environmentally neutral distance to plan. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. But if you arn't measuring/averaging actual distance, how do you know the effectiveness of your planning?

 

My whole point in posting in this thread is to point out that there is a SIGNIFICANT decrease in translation between neutral conditions and off the deck shots that doesn't exist with tee shots. As such, people overestimate their off the deck average significantly more than they overestimate their tee average. Further, when and if you hit the club (i.e. making good decisions) matters a lot when you ask someone how far they carry a 3 wood on average. It doesn't matter when you ask how far they hit a driver on average*. Its a basic principle of statistics that for some reason posters are acting like its an absurd idea. Being smart about when you hit 3 wood makes your 3 wood average better. Examining your 3 wood average numbers can tell you if you are or are not making good decisions about when to hit it.

 

In this thread, people are posting their neutral distances but my very strong suspicion is that these degrade significantly when on the course due to bad decisions (either hitting it when you shouldn't or not hitting it when you should) and that, unlike tee shots, decision making is the primary factor in a player's actual, on-course off the deck 3 wood average.

 

*Yes, there are short par 4 layup cases but please don't make that silly point, you know what I mean.

[gatoreric]

I sit at the same 215-225 range. Off the deck or teed is very similar for me.

[Exactice808]

I sit at the same 215-225 range. Off the deck or teed is very similar for me.

 

Since this thread is pretty much in lala land, I do have a serious side question, Im either really really slow today (normally like it anyways) But if all things being equal as above, I dont see very different distance off a tee or off a fairway myself.

 

How do you guys seem to get almost 10+ yards more off a tee with a 3 wood?

 

I mean, if I have a 150 yards Par 3, and I tee up my 8iron, I expect it to go 150 yards if I am lying 1 in a fairway, with 150 yards to a green for my second shot, I pull my 8iron and expect it to go 150 yards.

 

The strike on a tee and the strike from a fairway in my mind should be the same??

 

 

With that, many 3 woods are not "deep" per say like a driver, where teeing it up is necessary, many 3 woods are shallow and wide? teeing up a 3 wood benefits you on possibly gaining an optimal strike as the ball is slightly elevated off the ground so the chance of hitting it fat is less, But other than that a good strike from a tee and the deck should net similar distances? but 10+ yards seem significant to me?

 

You guys that "tee" your 3 wood, do you guys "tee" it up significantly off the ground to get a positive AoA? to really hit up on it for the extra distance or something?

 

 

Im just curious? Thanks!

[spoonek9]

Just like a driver, an upward AOA should produce more distance.

[yebritas77]

260-280 for me depending if I hit it of the deck or from the tee..

[North Butte]

I'm trying to imagine a guy who tries his best to swing 6 degrees up on his driver for maximum distance and finds he can carry the ball 280 quite regularly and hits 300-yard drives when he really nuts one. But he also finds he hits it all over the county sometimes.

 

So he backs off to a 3-wood off the tee to keep the ball in play even if it gives up some distance. Naturally he tees the ball a couple inches above the ground, puts it out in front of his front foot and tries his darndest to swing 6 degrees up on it for more distance.

 

Does anyone but me see the problem with that reasoning?

 

I wonder if he loses balls with the 3-wood if he'll switch to a driving iron...and tee it high to try and hit up on it for more distance?

[RobotDoctor]

I can hit mine around 230 yds - 235 yds at sea level, around 250 yds - 255 yds or so in Colorado if I strike it well and release the club.

[Exactice808]

Just like a driver, an upward AOA should produce more distance.

 

How much do you tee it off the ground, I dont think I have ever teed a ball "high" for a wood shot, I tee it the same height I would tee a PW off a tee box, basically just enough that the tips of the grass touch the bottom of the ball?

 

 

Seriously curious about it, as if it makes that much of a differences, I may want to try, I have been searching and searching for a less then driver club, wild off the tee with the 3 wood and now I have an awesome 5 wood, that I really like, BUT, once in a while I get steep and chunky with it off the tee and hit blocks, So if "teeing" it up higher than normal shallows me out and I can hit with a more positive AoA, I guess it would make sense?

[Exactice808]

I'm trying to imagine a guy who tries his best to swing 6 degrees up on his driver for maximum distance and finds he can carry the ball 280 quite regularly and hits 300-yard drives when he really nuts one. But he also finds he hits it all over the county sometimes.

 

So he backs off to a 3-wood off the tee to keep the ball in play even if it gives up some distance. Naturally he tees the ball a couple inches above the ground, puts it out in front of his front foot and tries his darndest to swing 6 degrees up on it for more distance.

 

Does anyone but me see the problem with that reasoning?

 

I wonder if he loses balls with the 3-wood if he'll switch to a driving iron...and tee it high to try and hit up on it for more distance?

 

Thats my thought was well, I am not seeing it, I guess, I have never watched a tour pro tee up a wood from a tee box, a couple inches to "hit up" on the ball so if they dont, I sure as heck should not, In my mind, I see a lot of potential drop kicks, skyed balls, hooks and the likes, even less consistency, than "sweeping" and pick the ball clean with a negative or "flat" AoA for a wood that is?

[Golfrnut]

Just like everything else, hitting up does not increase distance unless the launch angle is already too low. Spin loft will likely stay the same, which means compression and spin will also stay the same. Hitting up would just give the potential to use a lower loft to achieve the same launch angle as hitting level/down, which would create the opportunity to use a lower loft, increasing potential compression and lowering the spin.

 

With most heads being "hotter" these days, this isn't really an issue as the high ball speeds are already able to be achieved without the need to do so. Changing spin a couple hundred RPM is going to be negligible as well as it really means nothing in terms of distance. For most, distance isn't the goal anyway, that's what a driver is for. Fairways should be about targeting a yardage gap and obtaining a useful descent angle.

 

Hitting off a tee vs grass lie is more about contact quality than it is altering the spin...the contact is where the improved distance is going to come from.

[Carl Spackler3]

Golfwrx never fails to deliver. :taunt: