DECADE by BirdieFire

[moadhia]

How useful would decade be for a 10-15 handicap player ?

[swizbeatz]

This is really interesting stuff. I mapped out a course where I have a match this weekend, and I'm going to try to strategize my tee shots based on the charts. I've played this course maybe a half dozen times over the years, so I know it a little bit, but seeing the cone over each hole really shows where it makes the most sense to be aggressive and where the more conservative approach is wise.

 

One thing -- I used the cone overlay that's linked from the YouTube video that was shared earlier in the thread, and that one has gray lines, which are a little faint when I use it on the map. I see some other people have posted pictures where the lines are white and stand out more. Does anyone have a link to one like that they could share? I could probably download photoshop and make one, but I'm lazy.

 

I’m playing in the same event and we’ve talked. What I’m most excited about is a few tee shots I know have given me problems, they are actually ~80 yards wide so I plan on trying to be very confident on those shots Sunday.

[ebrasmus21]

What'd you guys think about this hole? It's about 340 to get to the front of the green. Farther you go the narrower the fairway gets and missing into the bunkers on the right can result in a 50 - 70 yard bunker shot.

 

Played yesterday - sent driver to the edge of the bunker on the left at the very edge of the cone.

[drewtaylor21]

What'd you guys think about this hole? It's about 340 to get to the front of the green. Farther you go the narrower the fairway gets and missing into the bunkers on the right can result in a 50 - 70 yard bunker shot.

 

Played yesterday - sent driver to the edge of the bunker on the left at the very edge of the cone.

 

If it's 340 to the front, I'd guess the distance from the first FW bunker to the green is about 130 yards? FW looks pretty wide there, my guess is you could put a 5-6 iron in the FW there 8 out of 10 times, have a wedge in and make 4 or better most of the time. Hitting driver looks like you're going to be blocked out from even hitting the GIR about 50% of the time and my guess is you wouldn't have very many more birdies. Scoring potential looks better from right around the FW bunkers to my eye. This would by my shotgun:

 

 

[ebrasmus21]

What'd you guys think about this hole? It's about 340 to get to the front of the green. Farther you go the narrower the fairway gets and missing into the bunkers on the right can result in a 50 - 70 yard bunker shot.

 

Played yesterday - sent driver to the edge of the bunker on the left at the very edge of the cone.

 

If it's 340 to the front, I'd guess the distance from the first FW bunker to the green is about 130 yards? FW looks pretty wide there, my guess is you could put a 5-6 iron in the FW there 8 out of 10 times, have a wedge in and make 4 or better most of the time. Hitting driver looks like you're going to be blocked out from even hitting the GIR about 50% of the time and my guess is you wouldn't have very many more birdies. Scoring potential looks better from right around the FW bunkers to my eye. This would by my shotgun:

 

 

 

It's fun trying to hit the boom-stick on this hole but I think you are correct, Drew. Hitting 5 iron here would likely be a much more consistent play.

[drewtaylor21]

What'd you guys think about this hole? It's about 340 to get to the front of the green. Farther you go the narrower the fairway gets and missing into the bunkers on the right can result in a 50 - 70 yard bunker shot.

 

Played yesterday - sent driver to the edge of the bunker on the left at the very edge of the cone.

 

If it's 340 to the front, I'd guess the distance from the first FW bunker to the green is about 130 yards? FW looks pretty wide there, my guess is you could put a 5-6 iron in the FW there 8 out of 10 times, have a wedge in and make 4 or better most of the time. Hitting driver looks like you're going to be blocked out from even hitting the GIR about 50% of the time and my guess is you wouldn't have very many more birdies. Scoring potential looks better from right around the FW bunkers to my eye. This would by my shotgun:

 

 

 

It's fun trying to hit the boom-stick on this hole but I think you are correct, Drew. Hitting 5 iron here would likely be a much more consistent play.

 

You could also do what Scott laid out originally, which is to look at strokes gained possibilities from the various spots.

 

If we assume your driver leaves you ~40 yards out and you have PGA Tour level numbers from there, here are your best bets for shots remaining to hole out:

 

Left-side recovery: 3.9 (auto-bogey)

Left side rough: 2.8

FW: 2.6

Right bunker: 2.8

Right-side recovery: 3.9

 

Given the narrowness there, it looks like you've got roughly 20% chance to hit the FW, 10% chance for rough, 20% chance for bunker, 50% chance for recovery. Average score = 4.31

 

If we assume 5 iron leaves you 130 yards (and you're PGA Tour quality from there)

 

Left side rough: 3.1

FW: 2.88

FW bunker: 3.2

Right-side recovery: 3.8

 

I'd guess roughly 5% chance for rough, 80% chance for FW, 10% chance for bunker, and 5% chance for recovery,

Average score = 4.026

 

There are certainly some assumptions being made there, and you could adjust expected strokes based on your game, but it's a no-brainer to me!

[ebrasmus21]

What'd you guys think about this hole? It's about 340 to get to the front of the green. Farther you go the narrower the fairway gets and missing into the bunkers on the right can result in a 50 - 70 yard bunker shot.

 

Played yesterday - sent driver to the edge of the bunker on the left at the very edge of the cone.

 

If it's 340 to the front, I'd guess the distance from the first FW bunker to the green is about 130 yards? FW looks pretty wide there, my guess is you could put a 5-6 iron in the FW there 8 out of 10 times, have a wedge in and make 4 or better most of the time. Hitting driver looks like you're going to be blocked out from even hitting the GIR about 50% of the time and my guess is you wouldn't have very many more birdies. Scoring potential looks better from right around the FW bunkers to my eye. This would by my shotgun:

 

 

 

It's fun trying to hit the boom-stick on this hole but I think you are correct, Drew. Hitting 5 iron here would likely be a much more consistent play.

 

You could also do what Scott laid out originally, which is to look at strokes gained possibilities from the various spots.

 

If we assume your driver leaves you ~40 yards out and you have PGA Tour level numbers from there, here are your best bets for shots remaining to hole out:

 

Left-side recovery: 3.9 (auto-bogey)

Left side rough: 2.8

FW: 2.6

Right bunker: 2.8

Right-side recovery: 3.9

 

Given the narrowness there, it looks like you've got roughly 20% chance to hit the FW, 10% chance for rough, 20% chance for bunker, 50% chance for recovery. Average score = 4.31

 

If we assume 5 iron leaves you 130 yards (and you're PGA Tour quality from there)

 

Left side rough: 3.1

FW: 2.88

FW bunker: 3.2

Right-side recovery: 3.8

 

I'd guess roughly 5% chance for rough, 80% chance for FW, 10% chance for bunker, and 5% chance for recovery,

Average score = 4.026

 

There are certainly some assumptions being made there, and you could adjust expected strokes based on your game, but it's a no-brainer to me!

 

You're being generous with those tour level assumptions. I appreciate that :)

[drewtaylor21]

There are certainly some assumptions being made there, and you could adjust expected strokes based on your game, but it's a no-brainer to me!

 

You're being generous with those tour level assumptions. I appreciate that :)

 

I had no other choice, given your WITB signature :)

[ebrasmus21]

There are certainly some assumptions being made there, and you could adjust expected strokes based on your game, but it's a no-brainer to me!

 

You're being generous with those tour level assumptions. I appreciate that :)

 

I had no other choice, given your WITB signature :)

 

Got a new shaft so should probably update that... Shovels would help me fly under the radar a bit more as well!

[ebrasmus21]

How useful would decade be for a 10-15 handicap player ?

 

I’m hoping some of the more seasoned decade users will chime in on this.

[Fort Worth Pro]

What is the middle of the green distance from just short of the first bunker on the left??

[ebrasmus21]

What is the middle of the green distance from just short of the first bunker on the left??

 

About 135.

[Fort Worth Pro]

Think the correct decade strategy is hit the club that leaves you 135-140 under the guideline that once you have wedge in your hand, there is little gained by forcing it closer. Closer is better but. It at the expense of excessive risk.

[ebrasmus21]

Think the correct decade strategy is hit the club that leaves you 135-140 under the guideline that once you have wedge in your hand, there is little gained by forcing it closer. Closer is better but. It at the expense of excessive risk.

 

Yeah, its interesting thinking about course strategy in a more intelligent way. My club has a number of shorter par 4's with tiny greens, doglegs and bunkers everywhere. This weekend I try hitting a few more irons then I generally do.

[bladehunter]

Interesting concept. But lost m a bit when he claimed tiger needed to hit more drivers into trouble ... how on earth can that lead to scoring ?

[drewtaylor21]

Interesting concept. But lost m a bit when he claimed tiger needed to hit more drivers into trouble ... how on earth can that lead to scoring ?

 

What, specifically, are you referencing?

[drewtaylor21]

How useful would decade be for a 10-15 handicap player ?

 

I think the fundamentals apply to anyone, as the idea is to play to where you have the greatest likelihood of shooting the lowest score. The higher the cap, the wider the shotgun pattern, that's the only real difference.

[bladehunter]

Interesting concept. But lost m a bit when he claimed tiger needed to hit more drivers into trouble ... how on earth can that lead to scoring ?

 

What, specifically, are you referencing?

 

 

go to the OP in this thread...bottom video 14.55 ish mark he actually says " i do not believe tiger hits enough balls into the water or into trouble"...

[QMany]

Interesting concept. But lost m a bit when he claimed tiger needed to hit more drivers into trouble ... how on earth can that lead to scoring ?

 

What, specifically, are you referencing?

 

 

go to the OP in this thread...bottom video 14.55 ish mark he actually says " i do not believe tiger hits enough balls into the water or into trouble"...

 

He is saying he plays too conservatively, he doesn't challenge trouble enough. He is not saying he should be trying to hit it into the water literally, but he should take on the water more (which will occasionally lead to a few balls in the water). He thinks he'd be better off challenging the trouble leaving shorter clubs into greens, instead laying back too much leaving longer irons.

[bladehunter]

Interesting concept. But lost m a bit when he claimed tiger needed to hit more drivers into trouble ... how on earth can that lead to scoring ?

 

What, specifically, are you referencing?

 

 

go to the OP in this thread...bottom video 14.55 ish mark he actually says " i do not believe tiger hits enough balls into the water or into trouble"...

 

He is saying he plays too conservatively, he doesn't challenge trouble enough. He is not saying he should be trying to hit it into the water literally, but he should take on the water more (which will occasionally lead to a few balls in the water). He thinks he'd be better off challenging the trouble leaving shorter clubs into greens, instead laying back too much leaving longer irons.

 

 

yep.. and i understood that ..

 

 

BUT i think his opinion is coming from the stance of a good straight ( relatively ) driver of the ball. On the course isnt the place to become a better driver. And if you arent that sometimes you have to do what you have to do. These strokes gained programs and theories all work off of long term gains an the idea that one either is or will become more consistent than average.

 

What i find they dont take into account is all the strokes thrown away hitting driver into hazards in the meantime. Ive not seen any hard data over a long period that proves that over time you actually gain a thing win or finish wise. Keep in mind hes commenting on a guy whos likely won more professional golf tournaments hitting more 2 irons than driver off the tee than any player in history. That comment plus the David Duval ( eliminating one side of the course) one caught my ear because it sort of thumbs the nose at the strategies of two pretty accomplished players. That doesnt mean his opinion is wrong as a whole.. but it does make me think of the dude and his line " hey thats just like, your opinion , man...."

[drewtaylor21]

yep.. and i understood that ..

 

 

BUT i think his opinion is coming from the stance of a good straight ( relatively ) driver of the ball. On the course isnt the place to become a better driver. And if you arent that sometimes you have to do what you have to do. These strokes gained programs and theories all work off of long term gains an the idea that one either is or will become more consistent than average.

 

What i find they dont take into account is all the strokes thrown away hitting driver into hazards in the meantime. Ive not seen any hard data over a long period that proves that over time you actually gain a thing win or finish wise. Keep in mind hes commenting on a guy whos likely won more professional golf tournaments hitting more 2 irons than driver off the tee than any player in history. That comment plus the David Duval ( eliminating one side of the course) one caught my ear because it sort of thumbs the nose at the strategies of two pretty accomplished players. That doesnt mean his opinion is wrong as a whole.. but it does make me think of the dude and his line " hey thats just like, your opinion , man...."

 

I would say Scott's approach is more of a "by the numbers" and numbers only method. For some, that might be perfectly reasonable all the time, but I do think there is an element of individual comfortability under tournament pressure that will also influence shot selection beyond what might be the best play on paper, and this is likely the discrepancy we see with Tiger (or anyone) off the tee. If a shot just doesn't fit your eye, or you just aren't comfortable with it at all, is it really the right play just because the numbers support it? I think there's some room for discussion there.

 

I absolutely do think the numbers support that Tiger is putting himself at a disadvantage, especially in majors, by not hitting driver more often, but I don't know if he's capable of playing differently.

[Jkap110]

yep.. and i understood that ..

 

 

BUT i think his opinion is coming from the stance of a good straight ( relatively ) driver of the ball. On the course isnt the place to become a better driver. And if you arent that sometimes you have to do what you have to do. These strokes gained programs and theories all work off of long term gains an the idea that one either is or will become more consistent than average.

 

What i find they dont take into account is all the strokes thrown away hitting driver into hazards in the meantime. Ive not seen any hard data over a long period that proves that over time you actually gain a thing win or finish wise. Keep in mind hes commenting on a guy whos likely won more professional golf tournaments hitting more 2 irons than driver off the tee than any player in history. That comment plus the David Duval ( eliminating one side of the course) one caught my ear because it sort of thumbs the nose at the strategies of two pretty accomplished players. That doesnt mean his opinion is wrong as a whole.. but it does make me think of the dude and his line " hey thats just like, your opinion , man...."

 

I would say Scott's approach is more of a "by the numbers" and numbers only method. For some, that might be perfectly reasonable all the time, but I do think there is an element of individual comfortability under tournament pressure that will also influence shot selection beyond what might be the best play on paper, and this is likely the discrepancy we see with Tiger (or anyone) off the tee. If a shot just doesn't fit your eye, or you just aren't comfortable with it at all, is it really the right play just because the numbers support it? I think there's some room for discussion there.

 

I absolutely do think the numbers support that Tiger is putting himself at a disadvantage, especially in majors, by not hitting driver more often, but I don't know if he's capable of playing differently.

 

Can someone help show us new users the best way to use Google Maps or Google Earth...I can't figure out how to edit/measure/draw on it :(

[lhahn]

yep.. and i understood that ..

 

 

BUT i think his opinion is coming from the stance of a good straight ( relatively ) driver of the ball. On the course isnt the place to become a better driver. And if you arent that sometimes you have to do what you have to do. These strokes gained programs and theories all work off of long term gains an the idea that one either is or will become more consistent than average.

 

What i find they dont take into account is all the strokes thrown away hitting driver into hazards in the meantime. Ive not seen any hard data over a long period that proves that over time you actually gain a thing win or finish wise. Keep in mind hes commenting on a guy whos likely won more professional golf tournaments hitting more 2 irons than driver off the tee than any player in history. That comment plus the David Duval ( eliminating one side of the course) one caught my ear because it sort of thumbs the nose at the strategies of two pretty accomplished players. That doesnt mean his opinion is wrong as a whole.. but it does make me think of the dude and his line " hey thats just like, your opinion , man...."

 

I would say Scott's approach is more of a "by the numbers" and numbers only method. For some, that might be perfectly reasonable all the time, but I do think there is an element of individual comfortability under tournament pressure that will also influence shot selection beyond what might be the best play on paper, and this is likely the discrepancy we see with Tiger (or anyone) off the tee. If a shot just doesn't fit your eye, or you just aren't comfortable with it at all, is it really the right play just because the numbers support it? I think there's some room for discussion there.

 

I absolutely do think the numbers support that Tiger is putting himself at a disadvantage, especially in majors, by not hitting driver more often, but I don't know if he's capable of playing differently.

 

Can someone help show us new users the best way to use Google Maps or Google Earth...I can't figure out how to edit/measure/draw on it :(

 

I'm not an expert on Google Earth by any stretch and correct me if I'm wrong but from what I gather, the basic gist is you use ruler and drop pins to mark out whatever size cone you need. Then copy the Earth image of the map/pins into Photoshop and draw the cone using a transparent background. Then import the cone image back into Earth and resize the cone to match the pins you marked earlier. Then no matter where you move the cone, it will stay the same size.

[rebby]

To build the cone in Google Earth Pro I use software called Range Rings. It's a little tricky to learn at first but after doing a few, it's quick and easy. Be sure to read the instructions, having a centered POI (where your ring originates, the tee) is paramount. I struggled with this at first.

 

First things first, I pick a target line. I try to use something that I can pick out in the distance (tree, edge of bunker, etc) and use a 6' "window" for dispersion on both sides of the target line. 12' @ 270y is ~50y and @ 300 is ~60y (so ~20% which is pretty conservative if you ask me). I make note of the heading of my target line and use that when making my cones.

 

For my "cones" I use the "sector of annulus" option in Rings. The vast majority of them start at 720 feet (240y) and end at 900 feet (300y). My average drive carries ~270y (+/- depending on conditions) so adjust these values to something that makes more sense for your game. I'll adjust the distances on a hole by hole basis for obvious reasons as well (don't forget about adjusting distances for terrain when applicable). As previously mentioned, I use the heading of my target line to establish my start/end heading values (delta of 12'). I usually set the line color to whatever tee I'm measuring from and set the area opacity at 0%. I'll go back and drop pins to mark various measurements once everything is drawn out.

 

An overview screenshot is attached as an example. Obviously when you zoom in things are much more readable. If you want to see specifics of any hole, let me know and I'll provide that as well. I suppose that I could send the .kmz file as well, there are no "secrets" in there. In fact, if this catches on, I'd be happy to set up some sort of course .kmz share so that we could work on them as a community as such.

 

 

[mmack067]

If i don't care about creating an overlay and saving it to make a yardage book then I'll often just use bluegolf. They have a ton of course tours on there with a very easy to use interface for drawing distances.

 

For example, here's Shinnecock. https://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/shinnecockhillsgc/aerial.htm?next=tour.htm

[ebrasmus21]

If i don't care about creating an overlay and saving it to make a yardage book then I'll often just use bluegolf. They have a ton of course tours on there with a very easy to use interface for drawing distances.

 

For example, here's Shinnecock. https://course.blueg...m?next=tour.htm

 

Looks pretty easy to use - thanks for posting. Never seen this before.

[3_Jack_Par]

yep.. and i understood that ..

 

 

BUT i think his opinion is coming from the stance of a good straight ( relatively ) driver of the ball. On the course isnt the place to become a better driver. And if you arent that sometimes you have to do what you have to do. These strokes gained programs and theories all work off of long term gains an the idea that one either is or will become more consistent than average.

 

What i find they dont take into account is all the strokes thrown away hitting driver into hazards in the meantime. Ive not seen any hard data over a long period that proves that over time you actually gain a thing win or finish wise. Keep in mind hes commenting on a guy whos likely won more professional golf tournaments hitting more 2 irons than driver off the tee than any player in history. That comment plus the David Duval ( eliminating one side of the course) one caught my ear because it sort of thumbs the nose at the strategies of two pretty accomplished players. That doesnt mean his opinion is wrong as a whole.. but it does make me think of the dude and his line " hey thats just like, your opinion , man...."

 

I would say Scott's approach is more of a "by the numbers" and numbers only method. For some, that might be perfectly reasonable all the time, but I do think there is an element of individual comfortability under tournament pressure that will also influence shot selection beyond what might be the best play on paper, and this is likely the discrepancy we see with Tiger (or anyone) off the tee. If a shot just doesn't fit your eye, or you just aren't comfortable with it at all, is it really the right play just because the numbers support it? I think there's some room for discussion there.

 

I absolutely do think the numbers support that Tiger is putting himself at a disadvantage, especially in majors, by not hitting driver more often, but I don't know if he's capable of playing differently.

 

Can someone help show us new users the best way to use Google Maps or Google Earth...I can't figure out how to edit/measure/draw on it :(

Check out the video posted earlier in the thread here: http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1488212-decade-by-birdiefire/page__st__30#entry15770440

 

I've done 3 courses now, and it goes pretty quick once you get the hang of it. I can map a course and create a Word doc "yardage book) in about 45 minutes. ebrasmus21 sent me a cone file that works a lot better than the one you can download from the Youtube video because he set it up where the point of the cone is in the center, so just have to get that point on the tee, and you can rotate it where you need it without having to adjust the location of the cone whenever you change the rotation a little bit like with the one from the video.

[QMany]

I had trouble using the cone and Google Earth, so I'm still using the measuring device on Google Maps. It does allow me to adjust the distances if I know it is downhill or into a prevailing wind, for example. I do like that I can pinpoint the exact target for the middle of my distribution, too. I then screenshot and place it in a Word.doc along with an aerial of the green. One hole on each page. I print it out, take notes in the margins, and have it in my cart during tournaments.

 

[mmack067]

IN YOUR CART?! Must be playing in that mid am stuff now ;)

[ebrasmus21]

This hole seems kind of interesting. It's a Par 5 big dogleg to the left. I could hit 3-wood to the end of the dogleg or I could hit driver and try to cut across. I've never played this course before but I'm assuming that left is O.B.