Jump to content

3W vs Driver off the tee


Recommended Posts

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.

not as bad as a guy who thinks hitting it in the rough is more accurate than being in the middle of the fairway......and using idiotic cliché's is like saying stats are facts......statistical fallacies are your MO, but u like lying to yourself and peddling it to others. cant help u with that. fairways and greens my friend....not rough and greens....theres a cliché you should use sometime......How did the top 3 players at erin Hills make out? accurate as heck but didn't make the cut, right? lol
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Most days, I wonder why I even have a 3 wood. When I need to bomb it, I hit my driver, when I need to hit a conservative shot, I go easy on my driver, and if I NEED it in the fairway, I hit my 20 degr

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.

 

It's basically semantics, but I think you missed a key word in how I define it. "Accurate enough". That's good enough for me. I don't need precise. Or formalized.

 

Of course we all use stats, all day every day in our normal life. But you know what I meant by my statement, some people are truly "numbers" or stats people and some aren't. Some do most everything "by the numbers", they are very in depth and detailed. And that's fine, others just less so.

 

Admittedly I haven't read either of the books referenced in this thread. And quite honestly for me, I doubt I could ever get through something like that. In Fantasty baseball I would much rather watch a guy throw or run or hit as opposed to reading Bill James book.

 

People are just wired differently in how they analyze.


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

It's basically semantics, but I think you missed a key word in how I define it. "Accurate enough". That's good enough for me. I don't need precise. Or formalized.

 

Of course we all use stats, all day every day in our normal life. But you know what I meant by my statement, some people are truly "numbers" or stats people and some aren't. Some do most everything "by the numbers", they are very in depth and detailed. And that's fine, others just less so.

 

Admittedly I haven't read either of the books referenced in this thread. And quite honestly for me, I doubt I could ever get through something like that. In Fantasty baseball I would much rather watch a guy throw or run or hit as opposed to reading Bill James book.

 

People are just wired differently in how they analyze.

 

I guess I don't see the difference in precision between lasering your distance to the pin within a yard to pick an iron and recording your

Average driving distance over 50 Rounds to make a better tee Club choice rather than relying On memory. I think you may be more precise than you realize - getting approach shot yardage with a rangefinder to within a yard, calculating wind, and selecting an iron based On a database in your brain of what iron goes how far is an incredibly precise application of statistical information. You just

Don't think of it like that because you do it all the time.

 

If you are into golf I think you'd find the book worth the $14.99. But to Each his own. I appreciate your civil tone.

Ping G30 driver 3h 4h 5h stock stiff shafts

Bridgestone j40 DPC 6-PW x100

Vokey sm5 50/12F 56/10S x100

Taylormade Spider X

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an aside, the OP text says that a small head "provides confidence".

 

Confidence is an emotional response, and one that can't be argued with by statistics. If confidence is simply quantified by better resulting shots with one club over another, confirmation bias is intrinsic.

 

So I know this is the interwebs where we all CAPSLOCK the ish out of each other, but an old proverb says that a well formed question is half the answer. And with all due respect, this thread isn't close to 50%.

 

That said, a lot of great food for thought, but not getting near an answer.

14 Pings. Blueprints are incredibly good. Fetch is the most underrated putter on the market. Don't @ me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Don't worry, I didn't take it as being rude. Just thought it a bit amusing since I just spent the weekend w/ Monte at the Boston clinic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think biggest factor is height and workability.

 

I hit my natural 3W flight a bit higher than driver, and I can move it both ways. This proves useful on tee balls that require some shotmaking.

 

I hit my driver on a neutral mid flight and can only really hit it straight/fade. I cannot as easily manipulate flight in any way.

 

3W/4W is a necessarily evil that one must tackle if youre playing at a higher level, you need that tweener ball off the tee playing all kinds of different courses




Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

 

Yes many factors come into play but the emphasis on the volume is a bit mis-placed. Just realize that with respect to what the player sees at address - 20cc is actually pretty trivial and is not going to dictate any particular change by itself. Volume might impact the potential of the design but it's not really the volume by itself, rather it's what the designers do with the volume (or within that volume) that really matters. e.g. Just going with a slightly shallower face (by a few mm) could easily reduce the volume 20cc's but not have any impact on what the player sees or even feels. Or take the 460cc Ping G driver and add a sliding weight slot on the sole like the one in the SLDR head and you've just removed probably 50 cc's or more w/o the player being able to tell the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

 

Yes many factors come into play but the emphasis on the volume is a bit mis-placed. Just realize that with respect to what the player sees at address - 20cc is actually pretty trivial and is not going to dictate any particular change by itself.

I highly disagree. 20cc is a lot in design and visual aesthetics. I had a guy ask me the difference between a Scotty Newport and a Newport 2 because he couldn't tell. When you stand over the club, they are two different designs and it becomes very clear. When a highly "visual" player stands over his clubs, he can see the differences between the smallest change. And in the design world, 20cc is a lot.

 

even for a rank amateur like me, the difference between a 440cc head and a 460cc head is humongous. A huge head does nothing for me except make me doubt I can hit it straight....a 440cc head wipes that worry away for me. one less think to think about. When i go to my 3 wood off the tee, it gets even better. I can be more accurate with a smaller head. dead center of the fairway when i choose that target....the 460's ive used doesn't work out the same for me,......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes many factors come into play but the emphasis on the volume is a bit mis-placed. Just realize that with respect to what the player sees at address - 20cc is actually pretty trivial and is not going to dictate any particular change by itself.

 

I highly disagree. 20cc is a lot in design and visual aesthetics. I had a guy ask me the difference between a Scotty Newport and a Newport 2 because he couldn't tell. When you stand over the club, they are two different designs and it becomes very clear. When a highly "visual" player stands over his clubs, he can see the differences between the smallest change. And in the design world, 20cc is a lot.

 

even for a rank amateur like me, the difference between a 440cc head and a 460cc head is humongous. A huge head does nothing for me except make me doubt I can hit it straight....a 440cc head wipes that worry away for me. one less think to think about. When i go to my 3 wood off the tee, it gets even better. I can be more accurate with a smaller head. dead center of the fairway when i choose that target....the 460's ive used doesn't work out the same for me,......

 

You are jumping to conclusions based on specific examples. I didn't say they couldn't be different just that the volume itself doesn't dictate anything about the outline.

 

it's not really the volume by itself, rather it's what the designers do with the volume (or within that volume) that really matters.

 

It would be trivial to design two heads with the exact same outline but completely different volumes. Or I could just as easily create two heads with the exact same volume where one has a significantly bigger outline and bigger look then the other. What you see at address is largely 2D, not 3D.

 

EDIT - the original RBZ driver head vs the RBZ Tour head is one example of this - both were 460cc but the difference in the outline was very noticeable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes many factors come into play but the emphasis on the volume is a bit mis-placed. Just realize that with respect to what the player sees at address - 20cc is actually pretty trivial and is not going to dictate any particular change by itself.

 

I highly disagree. 20cc is a lot in design and visual aesthetics. I had a guy ask me the difference between a Scotty Newport and a Newport 2 because he couldn't tell. When you stand over the club, they are two different designs and it becomes very clear. When a highly "visual" player stands over his clubs, he can see the differences between the smallest change. And in the design world, 20cc is a lot.

 

even for a rank amateur like me, the difference between a 440cc head and a 460cc head is humongous. A huge head does nothing for me except make me doubt I can hit it straight....a 440cc head wipes that worry away for me. one less think to think about. When i go to my 3 wood off the tee, it gets even better. I can be more accurate with a smaller head. dead center of the fairway when i choose that target....the 460's ive used doesn't work out the same for me,......

 

You are jumping to conclusions based on specific examples. I didn't say they couldn't be different just that the volume itself doesn't dictate anything about the outline.

 

it's not really the volume by itself, rather it's what the designers do with the volume (or within that volume) that really matters.

 

It would be trivial to design two heads with the exact same outline but completely different volumes. Or I could just as easily create two heads with the exact same volume where one has a significantly bigger outline and bigger look then the other. What you see at address is largely 2D, not 3D.

 

EDIT - the original RBZ driver head vs the RBZ Tour head is one example of this - both were 460cc but the difference in the outline was very noticeable.

of course volume doesn't dictate the outline. You can make a square driver with the same volume as a round one......what u see at address is 3D, sorry. Have to disagree somewhat there.....but the bottom line is, the size of the head matters to a myriad of players out there. 20cc makes a huge difference in confidence one way or another.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I define accurate as 'did the ball end up where I intended it?'

so does 99% of the general population. The other 1% think if you are longer but in the rough, you were probably more accurate. its hilarious
Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was new to golf with a completely self taught terrible swing, I found 3W to be more forgiving than driver. At that time I was hitting a huge banana ball slice and the 3W kept it a lot straighter.

 

Now that I am little better (still terrible overall), I don't find 3W to be more forgiving any longer. As a matter of fact, on my bad ball striking days i get more confidence looking down at the huge 460 cc head.

 

My misses off the tee now tend to be straight pushes or straight pulls. So the sidespin reduction isn't important. For me its more about making decent contact and starting the ball reasonably on line. In that sense, I find the driver more "forgiving". As long as there isn't a forced carry, I can hit it almost anywhere on the face. Even bad toe or heel misses usually will squirt out 180 or so and playable, as long as the face isn't way closed or way open. Probably even more important is the depth of the face and vertical forgiveness which allows one to tee it up and not worry about hitting the ground first or getting under it.

 

For guys like me who are mid handicappers but not particularly great ball strikers, the dreaded shank or topped sky ball is always a factor. The combination of small head and long shaft with a 3W brings the total miss hit shank in play. Tee it too low and a fat shot is possible. Tee it a little higher and you might get under it and hit a 50 yard sky ball.

 

When my ball striking is on and I'm making center contact, then the benefits of the 3W start to become more apparent. It's more consistent as far as distance control and its easier to hit a nice controlled draw or fade.

 

So i guess the bottom line in my opinion is that driver is more forgiving at a lower level of ball striking is the goal is to make some kind of reasonable contact and get it out there somewhere playable. 3W becomes more forgiving at higher level of ball striking when shot shaping and what not come into play, or when fighting some kind of huge curve ball.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

not as bad as a guy who thinks hitting it in the rough is more accurate than being in the middle of the fairway......and using idiotic cliché's is like saying stats are facts......statistical fallacies are your MO, but u like lying to yourself and peddling it to others. cant help u with that. fairways and greens my friend....not rough and greens....theres a cliché you should use sometime......How did the top 3 players at erin Hills make out? accurate as heck but didn't make the cut, right? lol

What if missing the fairway means being in the woods or out of bounds like most courses here in the South? Shouldn't avoiding penalty shots off the tee outweigh everything regardless of the club you need to hit to do so?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I define accurate as 'did the ball end up where I intended it?'

so does 99% of the general population. The other 1% think if you are longer but in the rough, you were probably more accurate. its hilarious

 

"where I intend it" is as far as possible with an unobstructed view of the green and a playable lie. "Fairway" and "rough' are arbitrary distinctions that completely vary course to course and mean nothing. One' courses first cut is another's fairway we have muni's here where the rock-hard fairways are tougher than the first cut.

 

"fairway" and "rough" don't actually mean anything in the abstract. 'where I intend it' is as far as possible with a shot into the green and a playable lie. if rough, rough. if fairway, fairway.

 

EDIT

I don't understand why you write things like "its hilarious" on the end of your posts. If you had just cut it off at "rough." you would have made a good point without being a jerk. Its just not necessary. We're having a discussion and we don't agree. This forum would be pretty boring if everyone thought the same way. I'd love to keep hearing people's thoughts, but you don't need to add demeaning things like "its hilarious" to the end of your posts. Nobody else is doing that.

Ping G30 driver 3h 4h 5h stock stiff shafts

Bridgestone j40 DPC 6-PW x100

Vokey sm5 50/12F 56/10S x100

Taylormade Spider X

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if missing the fairway means being in the woods or out of bounds like most courses here in the South? Shouldn't avoiding penalty shots off the tee outweigh everything regardless of the club you need to hit to do so?

 

Yes. Nobody is advocating for losing strokes. Avoiding stroke-costing hazards is the number one goal of any tee shot.

 

Again, there is an ocean of grey between being in the fairway and being out of bounds in a lake. Its not a boolean choice. There are varying degrees. Its not either "accurate" or 'inaccurate", distance is a major factor to the quality of any tee shot. The trade off between how much distance is worth how much accuracy to your target line is why golf isn't chess and we all love it. As Stuart G said, there is no right answer for everyone necessarily - for me, the best method is to bomb it as far as I can and then work on 'escape shots' on the range. I attack the golf course and I play extremely aggresively. I've shot both a 66 and a 91 in competition (within 3 weeks of each other!).

 

I think Broadie makes a very good argument that bomb and gauge is the "best" way to play golf (i.e. most efficient given limited practice time and budget) but there is no doubt it leads to more variable (but lower over time) scores.

 

I'd MUCH rather shoot a 63 and an 80 (Total score 143) than two 72s (total score 144). Not everyone agrees with that, and it might come from competition where decent scores get you a bottle opener with a corporate logo and a "thanks for coming".

 

I just think high and mids (from what I've seen) don't play aggressive enough. I don't understand this high caps should make conservative, target-based swings approach. Its virtually guarenteed to lead to the scores that they've always shot (thats what they've always done). If I'm a low cap with a good swing, playing target golf to the middle of greens and trying to make 10 footers all day makes sense, but for the vast majority of golfers getting aggressive gives them their best shot of shooting a score.

 

I guess I just don't get telling a 15 cap to hit his 3 wood in the fairway and his 6 iron to the middle. That might be 'smart" *in the abstract* but there is basically a 0% chance he can make those two shots consecutively. Bomb it!

Ping G30 driver 3h 4h 5h stock stiff shafts

Bridgestone j40 DPC 6-PW x100

Vokey sm5 50/12F 56/10S x100

Taylormade Spider X

Link to post
Share on other sites

I define accurate as 'did the ball end up where I intended it?'

 

Where you intended it is subjective though. Too many golfers think their target is a specific point in space. That's a terrible way to manage a course.

 

One is better served by visualizing a shotgun dispersion pattern.

 

"Fawcett’s big idea is that the club in your hands is closer to a shovel than a scalpel—or, as he says, “You’re shooting a shotgun, not a sniper rifle.” Most golfers observe the pole in the hole and reflexively aim at it. Wrong, wrong, wrong, says Fawcett. Plotting the standard deviations of his own shots and the numbers from the Tour proved to him that the world’s best golfers are far less accurate than civilians might think. Add undetectable variables like wind currents on the ball’s journey and adrenaline in the operator (or its lack), and it’s clear that perfect shots are little more than happy accidents. Therefore expectations must be lowered if performance is to be raised. The smart golfer plans for degrees of failure rather than for perfection."

 

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2015/july/moneygolf-scott-fawcett/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I define accurate as 'did the ball end up where I intended it?'

so does 99% of the general population. The other 1% think if you are longer but in the rough, you were probably more accurate. its hilarious

 

"where I intend it" is as far as possible with an unobstructed view of the green and a playable lie. "Fairway" and "rough' are arbitrary distinctions that completely vary course to course and mean nothing. One' courses first cut is another's fairway we have muni's here where the rock-hard fairways are tougher than the first cut.

 

"fairway" and "rough" don't actually mean anything in the abstract. 'where I intend it' is as far as possible with a shot into the green and a playable lie. if rough, rough. if fairway, fairway.

 

EDIT

I don't understand why you write things like "its hilarious" on the end of your posts. If you had just cut it off at "rough." you would have made a good point without being a jerk. Its just not necessary. We're having a discussion and we don't agree. This forum would be pretty boring if everyone thought the same way. I'd love to keep hearing people's thoughts, but you don't need to add demeaning things like "its hilarious" to the end of your posts. Nobody else is doing that.

look in the mirror my friend. u have been the same way many times. very rude along the way. Agree that moving fwd, we don't do that, but look in the mirror
Link to post
Share on other sites

What if missing the fairway means being in the woods or out of bounds like most courses here in the South? Shouldn't avoiding penalty shots off the tee outweigh everything regardless of the club you need to hit to do so?

 

Yes. Nobody is advocating for losing strokes. Avoiding stroke-costing hazards is the number one goal of any tee shot.

 

Again, there is an ocean of grey between being in the fairway and being out of bounds in a lake. Its not a boolean choice. There are varying degrees. Its not either "accurate" or 'inaccurate", distance is a major factor to the quality of any tee shot. The trade off between how much distance is worth how much accuracy to your target line is why golf isn't chess and we all love it. As Stuart G said, there is no right answer for everyone necessarily - for me, the best method is to bomb it as far as I can and then work on 'escape shots' on the range. I attack the golf course and I play extremely aggresively. I've shot both a 66 and a 91 in competition (within 3 weeks of each other!).

 

I think Broadie makes a very good argument that bomb and gauge is the "best" way to play golf (i.e. most efficient given limited practice time and budget) but there is no doubt it leads to more variable (but lower over time) scores.

 

I'd MUCH rather shoot a 63 and an 80 (Total score 143) than two 72s (total score 144). Not everyone agrees with that, and it might come from competition where decent scores get you a bottle opener with a corporate logo and a "thanks for coming".

 

I just think high and mids (from what I've seen) don't play aggressive enough. I don't understand this high caps should make conservative, target-based swings approach. Its virtually guarenteed to lead to the scores that they've always shot (thats what they've always done). If I'm a low cap with a good swing, playing target golf to the middle of greens and trying to make 10 footers all day makes sense, but for the vast majority of golfers getting aggressive gives them their best shot of shooting a score.

 

I guess I just don't get telling a 15 cap to hit his 3 wood in the fairway and his 6 iron to the middle. That might be 'smart" *in the abstract* but there is basically a 0% chance he can make those two shots consecutively. Bomb it!

Agreed about the big variable in scores for low handicaps if you bomb driver every hole. I can shoot a 75 or 86 based in how I drive it. Would be easier if missing fairways where I play meant hitting from rough rather than a lost ball.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me there's not a huge difference in distance for me between 3W and Driver. It's tossing up the fact the head is much smaller on the 3W than the driver, so is the loss of 'forgiveness' countered by the reduction in side spin and shorter shaft.

 

I still don't know.

How high is your ball flight?

 

Personally I think biggest factor is height and workability.

 

I hit my natural 3W flight a bit higher than driver, and I can move it both ways. This proves useful on tee balls that require some shotmaking.

 

I hit my driver on a neutral mid flight and can only really hit it straight/fade. I cannot as easily manipulate flight in any way.

 

3W/4W is a necessarily evil that one must tackle if youre playing at a higher level, you need that tweener ball off the tee playing all kinds of different courses

 

Besides the workability, this seems like a common theme for most 3w vs driver threads. Folks aren't getting the ball up high enough to achieve close to optimal launch

[color=#0000cd][b]Taylormade M1 460 8.5* (2016) Tensei Pro Orange 70TX[/b][/color]
[color=#0000ff][b]TEE E8 Beta 13* 3 Wood Aldila Rogue Silver 70X[/b][/color]
[color=#0000ff][b]Callaway Razr X MB H Stamp 3-PW [/b][/color][color=#0000ff][b]DGX100[/b][/color]
[color=#0000ff][b]Titleist Vokey SM6 50* | SM5 54* | 58*[/b][/color]
[color=#b22222][b]Scotty Cameron Select Newport 2 34" Super Stroke Slim 3.0 CounterCore[/b][/color]

[color=#0000cd][b]Callaway FT-9 Tour 8.5* iMix Fubuki Tour 63X[/b][/color]
[color=#0000ff][b]Titleist 681T 2-PW DGS400[/b][/color]
[b]Odyssey Protype ix #1 34" Super Stroke Slim 3.0[/b]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I define accurate as 'did the ball end up where I intended it?'

 

Where you intended it is subjective though. Too many golfers think their target is a specific point in space. That's a terrible way to manage a course.

 

One is better served by visualizing a shotgun dispersion pattern.

 

"Fawcett’s big idea is that the club in your hands is closer to a shovel than a scalpel—or, as he says, “You’re shooting a shotgun, not a sniper rifle.” Most golfers observe the pole in the hole and reflexively aim at it. Wrong, wrong, wrong, says Fawcett. Plotting the standard deviations of his own shots and the numbers from the Tour proved to him that the world’s best golfers are far less accurate than civilians might think. Add undetectable variables like wind currents on the ball’s journey and adrenaline in the operator (or its lack), and it’s clear that perfect shots are little more than happy accidents. Therefore expectations must be lowered if performance is to be raised. The smart golfer plans for degrees of failure rather than for perfection."

 

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2015/july/moneygolf-scott-fawcett/

 

Very well said.

Ping G30 driver 3h 4h 5h stock stiff shafts

Bridgestone j40 DPC 6-PW x100

Vokey sm5 50/12F 56/10S x100

Taylormade Spider X

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me there's not a huge difference in distance for me between 3W and Driver. It's tossing up the fact the head is much smaller on the 3W than the driver, so is the loss of 'forgiveness' countered by the reduction in side spin and shorter shaft.

 

I still don't know.

How high is your ball flight?

 

Personally I think biggest factor is height and workability.

 

I hit my natural 3W flight a bit higher than driver, and I can move it both ways. This proves useful on tee balls that require some shotmaking.

 

I hit my driver on a neutral mid flight and can only really hit it straight/fade. I cannot as easily manipulate flight in any way.

 

3W/4W is a necessarily evil that one must tackle if youre playing at a higher level, you need that tweener ball off the tee playing all kinds of different courses

 

Besides the workability, this seems like a common theme for most 3w vs driver threads. Folks aren't getting the ball up high enough to achieve close to optimal launch

 

My driver tends to go higher than my 3 wood to be fair, not sure if I'd hitting down on my driver or teeing it too high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I define accurate as 'did the ball end up where I intended it?'

 

Where you intended it is subjective though. Too many golfers think their target is a specific point in space. That's a terrible way to manage a course.

 

One is better served by visualizing a shotgun dispersion pattern.

 

"Fawcett’s big idea is that the club in your hands is closer to a shovel than a scalpel—or, as he says, “You’re shooting a shotgun, not a sniper rifle.” Most golfers observe the pole in the hole and reflexively aim at it. Wrong, wrong, wrong, says Fawcett. Plotting the standard deviations of his own shots and the numbers from the Tour proved to him that the world’s best golfers are far less accurate than civilians might think. Add undetectable variables like wind currents on the ball’s journey and adrenaline in the operator (or its lack), and it’s clear that perfect shots are little more than happy accidents. Therefore expectations must be lowered if performance is to be raised. The smart golfer plans for degrees of failure rather than for perfection."

 

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2015/july/moneygolf-scott-fawcett/

 

Having recently switched my game plan from "do I go at the pin or not" to "where is the miss spot here and what shot or club allows for this" I have become much much better. I have dropped my scores by about 4-5 a round.

 

Wasn't aware of the specific theory but definitely agree for planning for a miss and not trying to hit it "perfect."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also one thing I think most can agree on is that better players would rather give up their 3 wood instead of driver if they had to choose.

 

This is a great observation that took a long time for somebody to make. Good point.

 

Also raises a chicken and egg issue. In another thread a higher cap disagreed with some of my course management theories and said that since I was a low cap I could "plan" but he couldn't. Its similar here.

 

Would they rather give up the 3 wood than driver because they are better players OR are they better players because they would rather give up 3 wood than driver? In other words, does the aggressive mentality *actually make them better* ?

 

I would say absolutely, but I have zero data to back that up. Most good players I know are extremely aggressive - right up to the point of stroke-costing hazards. They'll lay up on the holes that demand it but never just to "stay out of the woods". I've seen very few players who come to events, lay up on the majority of holes and go home happy with a MC and a 78. Yet I see that mentality basically every single time I play with a 12+ cap.

Ping G30 driver 3h 4h 5h stock stiff shafts

Bridgestone j40 DPC 6-PW x100

Vokey sm5 50/12F 56/10S x100

Taylormade Spider X

Link to post
Share on other sites

I define accurate as 'did the ball end up where I intended it?'

 

Where you intended it is subjective though. Too many golfers think their target is a specific point in space. That's a terrible way to manage a course.

 

One is better served by visualizing a shotgun dispersion pattern.

 

"Fawcett’s big idea is that the club in your hands is closer to a shovel than a scalpel—or, as he says, “You’re shooting a shotgun, not a sniper rifle.” Most golfers observe the pole in the hole and reflexively aim at it. Wrong, wrong, wrong, says Fawcett. Plotting the standard deviations of his own shots and the numbers from the Tour proved to him that the world’s best golfers are far less accurate than civilians might think. Add undetectable variables like wind currents on the ball’s journey and adrenaline in the operator (or its lack), and it’s clear that perfect shots are little more than happy accidents. Therefore expectations must be lowered if performance is to be raised. The smart golfer plans for degrees of failure rather than for perfection."

 

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2015/july/moneygolf-scott-fawcett/

 

Having recently switched my game plan from "do I go at the pin or not" to "where is the miss spot here and what shot or club allows for this" I have become much much better. I have dropped my scores by about 4-5 a round.

 

Wasn't aware of the specific theory but definitely agree for planning for a miss and not trying to hit it "perfect."

 

Fawcett applies this thinking specifically to driving here:

 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again--the premises in this video are a great basis for discussing the issues in this thread. But you have to like more light than heat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I define accurate as 'did the ball end up where I intended it?'

 

Where you intended it is subjective though. Too many golfers think their target is a specific point in space. That's a terrible way to manage a course.

 

One is better served by visualizing a shotgun dispersion pattern.

 

"Fawcett’s big idea is that the club in your hands is closer to a shovel than a scalpel—or, as he says, “You’re shooting a shotgun, not a sniper rifle.” Most golfers observe the pole in the hole and reflexively aim at it. Wrong, wrong, wrong, says Fawcett. Plotting the standard deviations of his own shots and the numbers from the Tour proved to him that the world’s best golfers are far less accurate than civilians might think. Add undetectable variables like wind currents on the ball’s journey and adrenaline in the operator (or its lack), and it’s clear that perfect shots are little more than happy accidents. Therefore expectations must be lowered if performance is to be raised. The smart golfer plans for degrees of failure rather than for perfection."

 

https://www.dmagazin...-scott-fawcett/

 

Of course it is subjective. My shot shape, shape of the hole, and preferred angle into the green will decide FOR ME what MY intended target area will be for that shot. My level of ability will determine how much margin of error to factor in and what I determine is success or failure in hitting that shot. The funny thing is some people are acting like my target is a 2' by 2' square out in the distance. Assuming otherwise means that folks can't prove they've read and understand their favorite book on golf theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...