3W vs Driver off the tee

[Stuart_G]

Yes, fitters should fit for club head size. As MOI goes up, the club head does get "harder" to square up. You can't make an object resistant to twisting when it hits a golf ball, but also somehow make it easy to twist so you can get it back to square.

 

Sidebar - an interesting theory but unproven (at least in any studies I've seen). And the underlying theory isn't nearly as strong as you think it might be. MOI is a resistance to rotational acceleration (torque). The bigger the torque (or attempted acceleration) the more the MOI will effect the motion. Relative to the forces of impact on an off center hit, the forces the player needs to apply to square the club are minuscule so the significance of the MOI of the head in turn will also be much smaller.

 

 

and yes, statistics prove facts.

 

Not even close. Statistics show probability, not fact. But that was already covered a long time ago in this thread.

 

 

 

The rest is pretty much pointless considering it's WAY more important to avoid penalties off the tee then any other aspect of the game. Most am's, especially mid-high caps shouldn't be encouraged to bomb and gouge it until they get to the point (or a particular hole) that they have some level of confidence that they will get a penalty free shot as the result of the tee shot. Not even the pro's hit driver on every hole. I don't hit my fairway more often then my driver because it hits more fairways with it - I hit it because I lose fewer balls and score much better with it on the holes I choose to use it over the driver.

[tsecor]

Tsecor, everyone agrees with you that head size and shaft length should be a part of fitting. We disagree about how to measure the results. Its that simple. You think hitting a fairway is "accurate". I think it is ten times more complicated than that, because you have to factor out the course your playing and the conditions and only look at the equipment and the golfer.

 

At its most basic level, that is our disagreement. Nobody would possibly disagree a smaller head size might be better for certain players. We just disagree that more fairways = better.

 

How long your driver shaft is is a stat (45 versus 44 is a statistical measurement). How large your driver head size is is a stat (460 vs 430 is a statistical measurement). You are using stats. You are just using them poorly.

 

You think the argument is whether or not you should get your shaft cut down or go with a smaller head. Nobody is arguing that with you. We are simply arguing that 1. you can't get away from stats (the size of your driver is a statistic dude) and 2. your measurement of accuracy is too simplistic. "I hit the fairway!" doesn't factor out 1. the course or 2. the conditions or 2. (and most importantly) distance and as such can lead to people thinking they are more accurate when they are not.

 

Again, no extra points for hitting the fairway. All that matters is an improvement in the accuracy of the resulting iron. *That* is what matters.

 

We agree that cutting down shafts and using smaller heads should be options. We just disagree on how to evaluate the results / the fit.

 

Deleted post above.

That's fine. But the point of the original post was about confidence gained and hitting fairways with that other club. I specifically mentioned the 460cc head and how that may not work for a lot of amateur golfers although its supposed to be "more forgiving". In your stat driven world, playing from the rough all day can be deemed more accurate......that's your thing, not mine and not part of the discussion.....to an amateur average golfer, hitting a fairway is accuracy....no matter what your manipulated stat sheet says. we talked erin hills....the guys playing from the rough all day missed the cut.....the guys in the fairway didn't.....but the guys in the rough may have been more "accurate" in your world. That's fine....IDC about that. Once again, the discussion is centered around what club an amateur can hit better even though he or she may be 20 yards shorter....but in the fairway which ultimately leads to better scoring chances.......and like PING is now saying "Smaller is better". I may agree with that.

 

I use a 440cc titleist driver. I rarely miss with it. I used a 460 M2 this weekend and hated it....way too big.....my 3 wood....hit it just as far and a lot more accurate (which means hitting the fairway).........i mean, who the hell aims for the rough and then claims they are accurate because they hit it there? Its just not part if this discussion

[JeffreySpicoli]

Guess the OP can't admit when he's wrong and only wants posters that agree with him on his threads.

 

Interesting, indeed.

[tsecor]

Yes, fitters should fit for club head size. As MOI goes up, the club head does get "harder" to square up. You can't make an object resistant to twisting when it hits a golf ball, but also somehow make it easy to twist so you can get it back to square.

 

Sidebar - an interesting theory but unproven (at least in any studies I've seen). And the underlying theory isn't nearly as strong as you think it might be. MOI is a resistance to rotational acceleration (torque). The bigger the torque (or attempted acceleration) the more the MOI will effect the motion. Relative to the forces of impact on an off center hit, the forces the player needs to apply to square the club are minuscule so the significance of the MOI of the head in turn will also be much smaller.

 

 

and yes, statistics prove facts.

 

Not even close. Statistics show probability, not fact. But that was already covered a long time ago in this thread.

 

 

 

The rest is pretty much pointless considering it's WAY more important to avoid penalties off the tee then any other aspect of the game. Most am's, especially mid-high caps shouldn't be encouraged to bomb and gouge it until they get to the point (or a particular hole) that they have some level of confidence that they will get a penalty free shot as the result of the tee shot. Not even the pro's hit driver on every hole. I don't hit my fairway more often then my driver because it hits more fairways with it - I hit it because I lose fewer balls and score much better with it on the holes I choose to use it over the driver.

#TRUTH

[Dan Drake]

Yes, fitters should fit for club head size. As MOI goes up, the club head does get "harder" to square up. You can't make an object resistant to twisting when it hits a golf ball, but also somehow make it easy to twist so you can get it back to square.

 

Sidebar - an interesting theory but unproven (at least in any studies I've seen). And the underlying theory isn't nearly as strong as you think it might be. MOI is a resistance to rotational acceleration (torque). The bigger the torque (or attempted acceleration) the more the MOI will effect the motion. Relative to the forces of impact on an off center hit, the forces the player needs to apply to square the club are minuscule so the significance of the MOI of the head in turn will also be much smaller.

 

 

and yes, statistics prove facts.

 

Not even close. Statistics show probability, not fact. But that was already covered a long time ago in this thread.

 

 

 

The rest is pretty much pointless considering it's WAY more important to avoid penalties off the tee then any other aspect of the game. Most am's, especially mid-high caps shouldn't be encouraged to bomb and gouge it until they get to the point (or a particular hole) that they have some level of confidence that they will get a penalty free shot as the result of the tee shot. Not even the pro's hit driver on every hole. I don't hit my fairway more often then my driver because it hits more fairways with it - I hit it because I lose fewer balls and score much better with it on the holes I choose to use it over the driver.

 

Thank you for educating me regarding MOI, and I mean that genuinely. I was fairly certain that the relationship between "mishit" MOI and "squaring the club face" MOI wasn't a 1:1 type of thing, but I thought it was at least significant. To know that it isn't (at least not that we can prove) gives me one less excuse for not hitting my driver straight!

 

Thanks a lot!

 

And yes, regarding your second point, if you don't hit your driver well enough to avoid penalty strokes on the courses you most often play, then you need a different tee shot club AND to work on your driver (both swing and fitting).

 

Great post Stuart.

[JeffreySpicoli]

 

if you don't hit your driver well enough to avoid penalty strokes on the courses you most often play, then you need a different tee shot club AND to work on your driver (both swing and fitting).

 

You and Stuart have both correctly pointed this out. But we need to be careful as the OP thinks it supports his position. In reality, Broadie agrees with this and, as I've already pointed out, Fawcett does a great job of taking it even further in a practical way.

 

For whatever reason, the OP has created a strawman of Broadie's work and that's a terrible disservice.

[tsecor]

i don't know why companies make such large drivers when its harder to control and ultimately becomes less accurate. With the average amateur hitting their drives 190 yards, I buy into the smaller head, faster swing and ultimately more controllable driver fitting technique. I think PING is taking the approach with the smaller head because its easier to build a real good performing driver that fits a larger population of golfers rather than going with the "more forgiving, larger sweet spot approach" that has really been proven to be marketing hype more than anything

[pinestreetgolf]

 

if you don't hit your driver well enough to avoid penalty strokes on the courses you most often play, then you need a different tee shot club AND to work on your driver (both swing and fitting).

 

You and Stuart have both correctly pointed this out. But we need to be careful as the OP thinks it supports his position. In reality, Broadie agrees with this and, as I've already pointed out, Fawcett does a great job of taking it even further in a practical way.

 

For whatever reason, the OP has created a strawman of Broadie's work and that's a terrible disservice.

 

There is an ocean of grey between "the fairway" and "completely unplayable and out of bounds". We are suggesting that there is a whole lot of parts of that grey that justify more distance at a cost of "worse" accuracy. I am further suggesting that a 300 yard driver who misses 10 yards left is more accurate than a 200 yard driver who misses 5 yards left.

 

Now, once in a while, those 5 yards more the 300 hitter misses by will put him in a lake where the 200 hitter can't reach, but over time, because there are so many grey areas between fairway and completely screwed in a hazard, the longer player will shoot much lower scores. Distance must be considered when evaluating a player's (or club's) "accuracy". If you get more accurate by losing distance there's a good chance you've 1. Made a bad trade and 2. Arnt actually more accurate at all (just short of the trouble).

[JeffreySpicoli]

i don't know why companies make such large drivers when its harder to control and ultimately becomes less accurate. With the average amateur hitting their drives 190 yards, I buy into the smaller head, faster swing and ultimately more controllable driver fitting technique. I think PING is taking the approach with the smaller head because its easier to build a real good performing driver that fits a larger population of golfers rather than going with the "more forgiving, larger sweet spot approach" that has really been proven to be marketing hype more than anything

 

You're twisting the reasons for Ping releasing this driver. If they hadn't been able to increase the MOI over previous recent 460cc heads, they wouldn't have brought this new driver to market.

[Dan Drake]

if you don't hit your driver well enough to avoid penalty strokes on the courses you most often play, then you need a different tee shot club AND to work on your driver (both swing and fitting).

 

You and Stuart have both correctly pointed this out. But we need to be careful as the OP thinks it supports his position. In reality, Broadie agrees with this and, as I've already pointed out, Fawcett does a great job of taking it even further in a practical way.

 

For whatever reason, the OP has created a strawman of Broadie's work and that's a terrible disservice.

 

There is an ocean of grey between "the fairway" and "completely unplayable and out of bounds". We are suggesting that there is a whole lot of parts of that grey that justify more distance at a cost of "worse" accuracy. I am further suggesting that a 300 yard driver who misses 10 yards left is more accurate than a 200 yard driver who misses 5 yards left.

 

 

This is the exact reason why I joking refer to Bubba Watson (or DJ or Day or Rory, etc.) as the tour's most accurate driver when chatting about the professional game!

[Stuart_G]

Thank you for educating me regarding MOI, and I mean that genuinely. I was fairly certain that the relationship between "mishit" MOI and "squaring the club face" MOI wasn't a 1:1 type of thing, but I thought it was at least significant. To know that it isn't (at least not that we can prove) gives me one less excuse for not hitting my driver straight!

 

Thanks a lot!

 

Well should add a couple points. I said it hasn't been proven but that's not the same as saying it has been disproven either. At least I haven't come accross anyone who has looked into it at any serious level and published the results.

 

Second, the rate of rotation isn't a constant - different players have different shaft rotation rates into impact (note that is different then face closer rates). There could be a potential for it to be an issue with the players at the extremes who have a much faster then average amount of face rotation into impact (which is why I said it's an interesting theory).

 

Although those players are usually the ones who get stuck - so you could also look at it as a side effect of a swing fault :-)

 

And yes, regarding your second point, if you don't hit your driver well enough to avoid penalty strokes on the courses you most often play, then you need a different tee shot club AND to work on your driver (both swing and fitting).

 

Great post Stuart.

 

Thanks - I am :-) But at my level, my skill with the driver doesn't mean anything for the cases where there are forced layups, hard dog-legs you can go through even if you hit it straight down the middle of the fairway, or 15 yard wide, tree lined fairways, bunkers that need to be avoided that happen to be at the 'right' distance, or even in my case, when the shape of the fairway is opposite of my normal driver shot shape. Some holes are suited for a driver, and some are just not.

[tsecor]

Thank you for educating me regarding MOI, and I mean that genuinely. I was fairly certain that the relationship between "mishit" MOI and "squaring the club face" MOI wasn't a 1:1 type of thing, but I thought it was at least significant. To know that it isn't (at least not that we can prove) gives me one less excuse for not hitting my driver straight!

 

Thanks a lot!

 

Well should add a couple points. I said it hasn't been proven but that's not the same as saying it has been disproven either. At least I haven't come accross anyone who has looked into it at any serious level and published the results.

 

Second, the rate of rotation isn't a constant - different players have different shaft rotation rates into impact (note that is different then face closer rates). There could be a potential for it to be an issue with the players at the extremes who have a much faster then average amount of face rotation into impact (which is why I said it's an interesting theory).

 

Although those players are usually the ones who get stuck - so you could also look at it as a side effect of a swing fault :-)

 

And yes, regarding your second point, if you don't hit your driver well enough to avoid penalty strokes on the courses you most often play, then you need a different tee shot club AND to work on your driver (both swing and fitting).

 

Great post Stuart.

 

Thanks - I am :-) But at my level, my skill with the driver doesn't mean anything for the cases where there are forced layups, hard dog-legs you can go through even if you hit it straight down the middle of the fairway, or 15 yard wide, tree lined fairways, bunkers that need to be avoided that happen to be at the 'right' distance, or even in my case, when the shape of the fairway is opposite of my normal driver shot shape. Some holes are suited for a driver, and some are just not.

When you throw in multiple axis as it relates to MOI it must be almost impossible to build a driver that fits every golfer. every person is unique from their build to their strength to the moment they release their wrists....how can you take a club with a specified swing weight and apply a general MOI to anyone and say the club head is more forgiving. This is why the 460cc driver may be on its way out....the marketing surrounding this is just that....marketing.... why are people more accurate with a smaller, shorter club? part of it is control.

[Stuart_G]

When you throw in multiple axis as it relates to MOI it must be almost impossible to build a driver that fits every golfer. every person is unique from their build to their strength to the moment they release their wrists....how can you take a club with a specified swing weight and apply a general MOI to anyone and say the club head is more forgiving. This is why the 460cc driver may be on its way out....the marketing surrounding this is just that....marketing.... why are people more accurate with a smaller, shorter club? part of it is control.

 

Not sure but I think we're talking about different MOI's. Sounds like you are talking about the MOI of the full club, we've been talking about just the MOI of the head only about it's vertical axis. That's the specific characteristic of the head (along with the face bulge design) that resists the amount of gear effect that adds hook/slice spin for off center hits. Less hook/slice spin added - the less offline the ball will fly. That MOI being low is what gave the SLDR the rep for being a very unforgiving head - or higher values like in some of the Ping heads give them a rep as being more forgiving - when dealing with heads of similar playing lengths.

 

Yes, more shorter playing lengths (assuming everything else is fit properly) do generally give more control and better impact - which is another way to get less gear effect.

 

Not sure one release from Ping constitutes the downfall of the 460cc heads. There has always been at least a small market for smaller heads, Ping is just joining a party that already existed.

[tsecor]

When you throw in multiple axis as it relates to MOI it must be almost impossible to build a driver that fits every golfer. every person is unique from their build to their strength to the moment they release their wrists....how can you take a club with a specified swing weight and apply a general MOI to anyone and say the club head is more forgiving. This is why the 460cc driver may be on its way out....the marketing surrounding this is just that....marketing.... why are people more accurate with a smaller, shorter club? part of it is control.

 

Not sure but I think we're talking about different MOI's. Sounds like you are talking about the MOI of the full club, we've been talking about just the MOI of the head only about it's vertical axis. That's the specific characteristic of the head (along with the face bulge design) that resists the amount of gear effect that adds hook/slice spin for off center hits. Less hook/slice spin added - the less offline the ball will fly. That MOI being low is what gave the SLDR the rep for being a very unforgiving head - or higher values like in some of the Ping heads give them a rep as being more forgiving - when dealing with heads of similar playing lengths.

 

Yes, more shorter playing lengths (assuming everything else is fit properly) do generally give more control and better impact - which is another way to get less gear effect.

 

Not sure one release from Ping constitutes the downfall of the 460cc heads.

correct....the full club........if we played just heads, then i think it would be so much easier, but so many other factors come into play.....

i think you will see the 460cc head start to diminish.....maybe not an immediate death but if the ping is successful, you can bet other companies will follow......Titleist already has the 440cc head and its very successful, so the trend may be picking up steam...

[nix]

I typically play the 3w off the tee when I need something shorter off of the tee. I think it's marginally straighter, but if my Driver is way off, odds are the 3w is too.

[JeffreySpicoli]

When you throw in multiple axis as it relates to MOI it must be almost impossible to build a driver that fits every golfer. every person is unique from their build to their strength to the moment they release their wrists....how can you take a club with a specified swing weight and apply a general MOI to anyone and say the club head is more forgiving. This is why the 460cc driver may be on its way out....the marketing surrounding this is just that....marketing.... why are people more accurate with a smaller, shorter club? part of it is control.

 

Not sure but I think we're talking about different MOI's. Sounds like you are talking about the MOI of the full club, we've been talking about just the MOI of the head only about it's vertical axis. That's the specific characteristic of the head (along with the face bulge design) that resists the amount of gear effect that adds hook/slice spin for off center hits. Less hook/slice spin added - the less offline the ball will fly. That MOI being low is what gave the SLDR the rep for being a very unforgiving head - or higher values like in some of the Ping heads give them a rep as being more forgiving - when dealing with heads of similar playing lengths.

 

Yes, more shorter playing lengths (assuming everything else is fit properly) do generally give more control and better impact - which is another way to get less gear effect.

 

Not sure one release from Ping constitutes the downfall of the 460cc heads.

correct....the full club........if we played just heads, then i think it would be so much easier, but so many other factors come into play.....

i think you will see the 460cc head start to diminish.....maybe not an immediate death but if the ping is successful, you can bet other companies will follow......Titleist already has the 440cc head and its very successful, so the trend may be picking up steam...

 

You commingle so many factors that it's impossible to prove your claim regarding a slightly smaller head being demonstrably better than a 460cc head. Sure, a smaller head on a shorter shaft will probably have a smaller dispersion area. But so might a 460cc head with the same shorter shaft length.

 

Ping hasn't claimed that the new smaller head is more accurate simply because of head size. They only noted the higher MOI. We don't know at this point whether this driver will be more accurate and, if so, under what conditions.

 

You go on to overburden smaller driver head sizes in general. Titleist doesn't claim that their smaller driver head is "more accurate." And I've seen no studies that support your claim about this.

 

You've been merciless in this thread when others--especially PSG--say something even slightly questionable. Yet you play fast and loose with facts. Why not apply the same expectations to yourself that you press on others?

[pinestreetgolf]

i don't know why companies make such large drivers when its harder to control and ultimately becomes less accurate. With the average amateur hitting their drives 190 yards, I buy into the smaller head, faster swing and ultimately more controllable driver fitting technique. I think PING is taking the approach with the smaller head because its easier to build a real good performing driver that fits a larger population of golfers rather than going with the "more forgiving, larger sweet spot approach" that has really been proven to be marketing hype more than anything

 

We are all snowflakes. There is no "more controllable driver fitting technique", it doesn't exist. Every golfer is different, and that's why there are tons of driver options on the market and fitters to provide them.

 

What is never different is the criteria you should use when you evaluate the performance of a driver. Fairways hit is a terrible metric. You rail against things that are "stat based" but you are using stats - fairways hit is a statistical metric, just a bad one. You are engaging in the exact same behavior I am (you are trying to count fairways in your head using your memory to conclude the 430 driver head is more accurate), I'm just doing it in a much more detailed and systematic way than you so you rail against "Statistical analysis". Counting fairways hit in your head is statistical analysis. Its just bad statistical analysis.

 

Hitting more fairways can have a negative impact on your score if you hit them further back such that you iron accuracy into the green is reduced. Any gain a player makes in accuracy must be balanced against any loss of distance. Maybe its a good trade, maybe not. But "I'm more accurate, i'm in the fairway more" without more analysis (like an examination of distance in relation to that "Better" accuracy) isn't just a silly way to think, it could be actively harmful.

[Dan Drake]

Thank you for educating me regarding MOI, and I mean that genuinely. I was fairly certain that the relationship between "mishit" MOI and "squaring the club face" MOI wasn't a 1:1 type of thing, but I thought it was at least significant. To know that it isn't (at least not that we can prove) gives me one less excuse for not hitting my driver straight!

 

Thanks a lot!

 

Well should add a couple points. I said it hasn't been proven but that's not the same as saying it has been disproven either. At least I haven't come accross anyone who has looked into it at any serious level and published the results.

 

Second, the rate of rotation isn't a constant - different players have different shaft rotation rates into impact (note that is different then face closer rates). There could be a potential for it to be an issue with the players at the extremes who have a much faster then average amount of face rotation into impact (which is why I said it's an interesting theory).

 

Although those players are usually the ones who get stuck - so you could also look at it as a side effect of a swing fault :-)

 

And yes, regarding your second point, if you don't hit your driver well enough to avoid penalty strokes on the courses you most often play, then you need a different tee shot club AND to work on your driver (both swing and fitting).

 

Great post Stuart.

 

Thanks - I am :-) But at my level, my skill with the driver doesn't mean anything for the cases where there are forced layups, hard dog-legs you can go through even if you hit it straight down the middle of the fairway, or 15 yard wide, tree lined fairways, bunkers that need to be avoided that happen to be at the 'right' distance, or even in my case, when the shape of the fairway is opposite of my normal driver shot shape. Some holes are suited for a driver, and some are just not.

 

Sorry! When I said " if you don't hit your driver well enough...." I wasn't trying to single you out, I meant you as in "any golfer in general," me included! My apologies if it came across rude.

[ph00ny]

3w vs Driver discussion always seem to be based on the player.

I hit my shots really high and there is quite the gap in distance between the driver and my 3 wood. I think 30+ yards very big gap in approach shots.

 

I think i saw 16* launch angle figures during TM fitting hitting the M1 turned down 2* from 8.5 with rogue silver 70x. I'm happy with hitting driver on most holes and only hit 3 wood if the fairway runs out in the middle. Most dog legs, i try to hit it over the trees and take shortcut (thank you golf gps apps on smartphones)

[gandor]

any hole less than 350yrds, i hit my 3i and 350-400 i hit my 3w...unless the fairway is super wide then i take the big stick out. also, i use a 380cc driver which im currently hitting really good and misses are usually still playable so basically it depends on whats on the line like if there's skins game...if skins game only and no $$ for total scores then driver all day lol

[chippa13]

if you don't hit your driver well enough to avoid penalty strokes on the courses you most often play, then you need a different tee shot club AND to work on your driver (both swing and fitting).

 

You and Stuart have both correctly pointed this out. But we need to be careful as the OP thinks it supports his position. In reality, Broadie agrees with this and, as I've already pointed out, Fawcett does a great job of taking it even further in a practical way.

 

For whatever reason, the OP has created a strawman of Broadie's work and that's a terrible disservice.

 

There is an ocean of grey between "the fairway" and "completely unplayable and out of bounds". We are suggesting that there is a whole lot of parts of that grey that justify more distance at a cost of "worse" accuracy. I am further suggesting that a 300 yard driver who misses 10 yards left is more accurate than a 200 yard driver who misses 5 yards left.

 

Now, once in a while, those 5 yards more the 300 hitter misses by will put him in a lake where the 200 hitter can't reach, but over time, because there are so many grey areas between fairway and completely screwed in a hazard, the longer player will shoot much lower scores. Distance must be considered when evaluating a player's (or club's) "accuracy". If you get more accurate by losing distance there's a good chance you've 1. Made a bad trade and 2. Arnt actually more accurate at all (just short of the trouble).

 

But by your own adherence to % deviation, the 200 yard hitter is more accurate by 0.833%. Granted, if I could hit it 300 with only a 10 yard left or right miss, I'd definitely swing driver every chance I had.

[pinestreetgolf]

if you don't hit your driver well enough to avoid penalty strokes on the courses you most often play, then you need a different tee shot club AND to work on your driver (both swing and fitting).

 

You and Stuart have both correctly pointed this out. But we need to be careful as the OP thinks it supports his position. In reality, Broadie agrees with this and, as I've already pointed out, Fawcett does a great job of taking it even further in a practical way.

 

For whatever reason, the OP has created a strawman of Broadie's work and that's a terrible disservice.

 

There is an ocean of grey between "the fairway" and "completely unplayable and out of bounds". We are suggesting that there is a whole lot of parts of that grey that justify more distance at a cost of "worse" accuracy. I am further suggesting that a 300 yard driver who misses 10 yards left is more accurate than a 200 yard driver who misses 5 yards left.

 

Now, once in a while, those 5 yards more the 300 hitter misses by will put him in a lake where the 200 hitter can't reach, but over time, because there are so many grey areas between fairway and completely screwed in a hazard, the longer player will shoot much lower scores. Distance must be considered when evaluating a player's (or club's) "accuracy". If you get more accurate by losing distance there's a good chance you've 1. Made a bad trade and 2. Arnt actually more accurate at all (just short of the trouble).

 

But by your own adherence to % deviation, the 200 yard hitter is more accurate by 0.833%. Granted, if I could hit it 300 with only a 10 yard left or right miss, I'd definitely swing driver every chance I had.

 

You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. (Hopefully some people get this reference).

 

Good point, i didn't do the math. Same theme though :).

[tsecor]

if you don't hit your driver well enough to avoid penalty strokes on the courses you most often play, then you need a different tee shot club AND to work on your driver (both swing and fitting).

 

You and Stuart have both correctly pointed this out. But we need to be careful as the OP thinks it supports his position. In reality, Broadie agrees with this and, as I've already pointed out, Fawcett does a great job of taking it even further in a practical way.

 

For whatever reason, the OP has created a strawman of Broadie's work and that's a terrible disservice.

 

There is an ocean of grey between "the fairway" and "completely unplayable and out of bounds". We are suggesting that there is a whole lot of parts of that grey that justify more distance at a cost of "worse" accuracy. I am further suggesting that a 300 yard driver who misses 10 yards left is more accurate than a 200 yard driver who misses 5 yards left.

 

Now, once in a while, those 5 yards more the 300 hitter misses by will put him in a lake where the 200 hitter can't reach, but over time, because there are so many grey areas between fairway and completely screwed in a hazard, the longer player will shoot much lower scores. Distance must be considered when evaluating a player's (or club's) "accuracy". If you get more accurate by losing distance there's a good chance you've 1. Made a bad trade and 2. Arnt actually more accurate at all (just short of the trouble).

 

But by your own adherence to % deviation, the 200 yard hitter is more accurate by 0.833%. Granted, if I could hit it 300 with only a 10 yard left or right miss, I'd definitely swing driver every chance I had.

 

You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. (Hopefully some people get this reference).

 

Good point, i didn't do the math.

that's par for the course.......lol.......its stats though.....just manipulate it to fit your post.....

[pinestreetgolf]

that's par for the course.......lol.......its stats though.....just manipulate it to fit your post.....

 

Come on man It's a joke. You need to watch more Futurama.

[tsecor]

that's par for the course.......lol.......its stats though.....just manipulate it to fit your post.....

 

Come on man It's a joke. You need to watch more Futurama.

mine was a golf joke

[deadsolid...shank]

I'm about as far away from being a stat guy as can be. Just numbers to me. Maybe stats would provide me with something I don't know about my game, and maybe not. I feel like when I go back through my round shot by shot I can determine where I lost shots. Because I'm the only one who knows how the previous shot actually impacted the next one.

 

On the issue of what is "accuracy", for me anyway, if I hit a tee shot that provides me reasonable unencumbered shot into the green it was a successful, "accurate enough" shot. Even though it might not be in the fairway.

 

I consider unencumbered to mean nothing in my way that I have to hit something other than a stock shot, and rough not so thick that I can't land the ball on the green and keep it there.

 

And admittedly, stats( other than very basic ones) are pretty much out of my realm of understanding.

[pinestreetgolf]

I'm about as far away from being a stat guy as can be. Just numbers to me. Maybe stats would provide me with something I don't know about my game, and maybe not. I feel like when I go back through my round shot by shot I can determine where I lost shots. Because I'm the only one who knows how the previous shot actually impacted the next one.

 

On the issue of what is "accuracy", for me anyway, if I hit a tee shot that provides me reasonable unencumbered shot into the green it was a successful, "accurate enough" shot. Even though it might not be in the fairway.

 

I consider unencumbered to mean nothing in my way that I have to hit something other than a stock shot, and rough not so thick that I can't land the ball on the green and keep it there.

 

And admittedly, stats( other than very basic ones) are pretty much out of my realm of understanding.

 

Your definition of accurate has the same issue we've been trying to argue against. A shot is not either accurate or inaccurate. It is a massive scale with OB on one end and in the cup on the other.

 

Your post says "a shot is accurate if it provides a shot at the green" and fair enough. But you don't actually think this way. You know all accuracy isn't created equal. A shot isn't accurate or inaccurate, it is a varying degree of precise considering it's distance and its divergence from the target line.

 

You don't have to be "into stats" to understand that "accurate" is not a Boolean construct. "This shot was accurate" means absolutely nothing given how wide "accurate" could mean for any given hole, say a short par 4 accurate could range from a nice hybrid 200 up the middle to driving the green. Both those shots are "accurate" under y'alls definition but nobody would ever argue they are the same level of accurate. Driving the green is much MORE accurate. It's not black and white.

 

Calling a shot accurate (as tsecor does) and leaving it at that is ridiculously simplistic. There is an ocean of grey. "It was accurate" tells us nothing about the shot at all.

 

You can be more precise than accurate or inaccurate. You do it every round without realizing it. You don't need to "be a stats guy" to use this and you already do. We're just saying formalizing it during equipment selection and course management would make it more effective than your gut feelings. But you use stats.

 

Why don't you hit pitching wedge on a 200 yard forced carry? Because you know your average PW distance is 130 and it will splash. *thats using stats*. If you know how far your irons carry you use stats. If you keep score you use stats. You use stats constantly. What you don't do is formalize and write down stats, which is different than not using them. It's like saying "I don't use cars" and then taking cabs everywhere. You are using cars, just in a hideously inefficient way.

[tsecor]

I'm about as far away from being a stat guy as can be. Just numbers to me. Maybe stats would provide me with something I don't know about my game, and maybe not. I feel like when I go back through my round shot by shot I can determine where I lost shots. Because I'm the only one who knows how the previous shot actually impacted the next one.

 

On the issue of what is "accuracy", for me anyway, if I hit a tee shot that provides me reasonable unencumbered shot into the green it was a successful, "accurate enough" shot. Even though it might not be in the fairway.

 

I consider unencumbered to mean nothing in my way that I have to hit something other than a stock shot, and rough not so thick that I can't land the ball on the green and keep it there.

 

And admittedly, stats( other than very basic ones) are pretty much out of my realm of understanding.

 

Your definition of accurate has the same issue we've been trying to argue against. A shot is not either accurate or inaccurate. It is a massive scale with OB on one end and in the cup on the other.

 

Your post says "a shot is accurate if it provides a shot at the green" and fair enough. But you don't actually think this way. You know all accuracy isn't created equal. A shot isn't accurate or inaccurate, it is a varying degree of precise considering it's distance and its divergence from the target line.

 

You don't have to be "into stats" to understand that "accurate" is not a Boolean construct.

...and stats are not facts....hopefully that was cleared up long ago......just curious why u tell everyone "you don't think that way"......of course they do, he wrote it....I mean why do you keep saying stats are fact when stats 101 class tells you otherwise? statistical fallacy is the issue here with you.

[pinestreetgolf]

I'm about as far away from being a stat guy as can be. Just numbers to me. Maybe stats would provide me with something I don't know about my game, and maybe not. I feel like when I go back through my round shot by shot I can determine where I lost shots. Because I'm the only one who knows how the previous shot actually impacted the next one.

 

On the issue of what is "accuracy", for me anyway, if I hit a tee shot that provides me reasonable unencumbered shot into the green it was a successful, "accurate enough" shot. Even though it might not be in the fairway.

 

I consider unencumbered to mean nothing in my way that I have to hit something other than a stock shot, and rough not so thick that I can't land the ball on the green and keep it there.

 

And admittedly, stats( other than very basic ones) are pretty much out of my realm of understanding.

 

Your definition of accurate has the same issue we've been trying to argue against. A shot is not either accurate or inaccurate. It is a massive scale with OB on one end and in the cup on the other.

 

Your post says "a shot is accurate if it provides a shot at the green" and fair enough. But you don't actually think this way. You know all accuracy isn't created equal. A shot isn't accurate or inaccurate, it is a varying degree of precise considering it's distance and its divergence from the target line.

 

You don't have to be "into stats" to understand that "accurate" is not a Boolean construct.

...and stats are not facts....hopefully that was cleared up long ago......just curious why u tell everyone "you don't think that way"......of course they do, he wrote it....I mean why do you keep saying stats are fact when stats 101 class tells you otherwise? statistical fallacy is the issue here with you.

 

Because he doesn't think that way. He knows driving the green is more accurate than a nice hybrid up the middle on a short 4. He knows how far his pitching wedge goes. He shoots flags with a rangefinder. He knows how far his 3 wood goes. He knows roughly how good he is out of the bunker and he knows how much wind might effect his irons. He uses statistics constantly when he plays. Those are all statistics based decisions.

 

It's like the old joke. A man asks a woman if she would sleep with him for ten million dollars. She says "sure I guess". He then asks "what about for $5?" And she slaps him and says "what kind of a woman do you think I am?" He says "we've already established what kind of a woman you are, now we're just negotiating."

 

You said earlier you count fairways hit. That's a stat. We know what kind of golfer you are (one who uses statistics). Now we're just negotiating about how bad you are at it.

[ethanshapiro]

I don't really understand a lot of the logic behind the lay up w/ 3w. If you're gonna hit your driver so poorly that it isn't worth hitting how does the 3w save you? A bad swing with a driver isn't a better swing with 3w. Shorter and maybe less offline sure, but the mis hit with any club decimates ball speed numbers to the point where it isn't even gonna go anywhere past a well struck iron for most amateur players