3W vs Driver off the tee

[tsecor]

Fawcett obviously doesn't regard PGA tour players as snipers.....but they are.

 

And for any sniper, if you are not dead on accurate, you missed......you are not more accurate hitting outside the bullseye.

 

Imagine a Nave Seal Sniper subscribing to this junk?

 

but we stray far off course again...... for most players, accuracy means MIDDLE FAIRWAY where they aimed...not rough

[JeffreySpicoli]

Fawcett obviously doesn't regard PGA tour players as snipers.....but they are.

 

And for any sniper, if you are not dead on accurate, you missed......you are not more accurate hitting outside the bullseye.

 

Imagine a Nave Seal Sniper subscribing to this junk?

 

but we stray far off course again...... for most players, accuracy means MIDDLE FAIRWAY where they aimed...not rough

 

Hitting a golf ball is fundamentally different than firing a sniper rifle. Do you truly not understand this or are you reveling in the attention you receive for being so obtuse?

[chippa13]

For me, if second shot is 7i through wedges then yes, middle is what I would prefer. However, since 6i through driving irons are fade clubs for me, being right of center generally gives me more room for that second shot.

[rawdog]

Broadie did some nice work on the shotgun patterns. He plotted theoretical shot dispersion based on the data he gathered.

 

It's pretty "duh" to me, but in the example of avoiding OB right, it would behoove someone to take the distance and aim left side of the fairway, cutting down on balls OB.

 

It is interesting to note how there is an optimal number of OB shots. Essentially, at some level, it can be possible to have too few OB shots- indicating you are playing too conservatively. Meaning, your avoidance of OB shots is actually costing you strokes because in the instances you are NOT OB, you are costing yourself strokes.

 

I think we all do these calculations in our head somewhat, but I also think a lot of ams are reluctant to actually aim for the rough in order to avoid OB, water, high grass, etc.

[tsecor]

lets hit it OB and save strokes.....ummmmmm.....no thanks

[rawdog]

Here's a guy who gets it. He has a great write up on his blog as well.

 

I invited him to come post in this thread. I hope he does.

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1430088-monte-carlo-simulation-for-strategy/page__p__14806516#entry14806516

 

"...last year I was struggling with my strategy on a number of tee shots. Using this data I realised I was hitting driver when I shouldn't and the result was lots of unsafe shots with little to be gained by hitting it further. Switching to the optimal club (I enhanced the spreadsheet to allow for 5 clubs off the tee (model the data, copy the rows) reduced my average score on 1 particular hole by 0.4 shots!"

 

Optimizing tee shot strategy can save strokes in the aggregate, regardless of whether that strategy favors driver or 2h or any other club.

[Stuart_G]

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.

 

Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree. It's a meaningless question and doesn't make any point at all. Scoring well is about choosing the best club for the shot you have in front of you. Even if they choose the driver the majority of the time, that doesn't mean the 3wd (or any other possible option) is any less important because the usage off the tee is less. When they need it, they need it and it's just as important. Not having the 3wd would just mean having to go to a shorter club (5wd, 2 iron) when the driver is a poor choice - which could put them even further back and more at a disadvantage (even by your logic).

 

If you don't believe that - go back and read Monte's thread on his Champions Tour qualifier finals. If anyone would be a candidate for bomb and gouge it would be him, and yet it seemed pretty clear to me that he significantly regretted not having a reliable fairway wood swing/club combination he could use off the tee for that course.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...r-quest-thread/

 

unfortunately lots of clinic posts in there to wade through as well - start on page 5 and read through I think, at least page 9

 

BTW - I'll bet Henrik Stenson would choose to give up his driver ;-)

 

 

Sorry but these types of attempts to take something that's not even close to being an absolute and trying to turn it into one is way more hurtful to the discussion then helpful.

[tsecor]

going OB for ME, doesn't work. Id rather hit a 5I 200 yards off the tee and relay on my short game more rather than losing shots purposely

[rawdog]

lets hit it OB and save strokes.....ummmmmm.....no thanks

 

Imagine if we were all this closed-minded at work.

 

"Taking on debt? No thanks, we'd be losing money."

 

"But sir, it's to fund a new manufacturing facility. We could increase production."

 

I mean, really, how far out of your way would you go to avoid hitting OB then? It's a serious question. Broadie suggests a 100-golfer should lose about 1/50 balls OB if he's playing an optimal strategy on this hole.

 

What do you do to try and eliminate that 1/50 (hint, you never will unless you hit a club that won't even reach the woods, you'll just push it to 1/75, 1/100, 1/150, etc.)?

[Bad9]

lets hit it OB and save strokes.....ummmmmm.....no thanks

 

None of the guys you are arguing with have said that and you know it.

[rawdog]

going OB for ME, doesn't work. Id rather hit a 5I 200 yards off the tee and relay on my short game more rather than losing shots purposely

 

You're hitting a 5i 200 yards off the tee and making fun of someone, calling them "Rory" for driving 320? Interesting.

 

It's pretty clear that no one is suggesting hitting OB on purpose. It's about recognizing and accepting risk. You're so afraid to make the occasional 6 or 7 off the tee that you're severely limiting your scoring potential. The problem is that your brain remembers that 6 or 7. The loss is measurable in your head. But on the other 49/50 shots the benefit of an optimal strategy is smaller and less visible, so you don't really notice it. But it adds up to better aggregate scoring.

[nix]

I see one potential issue with Broadies suggestion and that is assuming the 100 golfer can accurately aim. It seems like such a simple thing, but it's not that simple. Yes it's easy to aim 90 degrees left or right, but aiming 15 yds left or right on a drive? How accurately can a 100 golfer aim?

[tsecor]

lets hit it OB and save strokes.....ummmmmm.....no thanks

 

None of the guys you are arguing with have said that and you know it.

did u read the picture? obviously not

[tsecor]

going OB for ME, doesn't work. Id rather hit a 5I 200 yards off the tee and relay on my short game more rather than losing shots purposely

 

You're hitting a 5i 200 yards off the tee and making fun of someone, calling them "Rory" for driving 320? Interesting.

 

It's pretty clear that no one is suggesting hitting OB on purpose. It's about recognizing and accepting risk. You're so afraid to make the occasional 6 or 7 off the tee that you're severely limiting your scoring potential. The problem is that your brain remembers that 6 or 7. The loss is measurable in your head. But on the other 49/50 shots the benefit of an optimal strategy is smaller and less visible, so you don't really notice it. But it adds up to better aggregate scoring.

how far do you hit a 5 iron? I am about 185 or so, with roll it can go 200 max....not very long compared to most people...

[chippa13]

The pages from the book show the optimal target as minimizing OB shots.

[tsecor]

I see one potential issue with Broadies suggestion and that is assuming the 100 golfer can accurately aim. It seems like such a simple thing, but it's not that simple. Yes it's easy to aim 90 degrees left or right, but aiming 15 yds left or right on a drive? How accurately can a 100 golfer aim?

The whole theory is just that...a theory......people have theories on 9/11 and aliens.....people have theories on the moon landing......none of it makes anything factual. its just theories and stats......nothing more.....golf has way too many variables......i hit a squirrel once.......i hit a goose another day......my driver head broke once......but darn, i was super accurate when my ball went 20 yards further than i planned and ended up behind a tree after hitting a rock that i couldn't see from the tee

[rawdog]

going OB for ME, doesn't work. Id rather hit a 5I 200 yards off the tee and relay on my short game more rather than losing shots purposely

 

You're hitting a 5i 200 yards off the tee and making fun of someone, calling them "Rory" for driving 320? Interesting.

 

It's pretty clear that no one is suggesting hitting OB on purpose. It's about recognizing and accepting risk. You're so afraid to make the occasional 6 or 7 off the tee that you're severely limiting your scoring potential. The problem is that your brain remembers that 6 or 7. The loss is measurable in your head. But on the other 49/50 shots the benefit of an optimal strategy is smaller and less visible, so you don't really notice it. But it adds up to better aggregate scoring.

how far do you hit a 5 iron? I am about 185 or so, with roll it can go 200 max....not very long compared to most people...

 

How far I hit my 5 iron isn't relevant to the discussion. This article has Trackman data from PGA pros in 2013. Their average 5 iron carried 194 and the average 6 iron carried 183.

 

So you carry your 5 iron as far as a PGA Tour pro carries his 6. I'd say that's pretty long.

 

Maybe not Rory long, but... ;)

 

Side note, if you're hitting your 5 iron 185, the article has your driver SS being around 105mph. That's well above the average among amateur golfers, anecdotally and based on any study I've read. A 105 mph SS will get you pretty far in this game.

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/62549/how-far-should-you-hit-your-golf-clubs/

[Ri_Redneck]

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/

 

I like the shotgun analogy. My problem is that I never know what choke I'm using till I start playing and sometimes it adjusts itself in the middle of the round.

 

This is for PSG. Just for the record, I understand how the whole "bomb and gouge" theory works. Some courses give you that option, some don't. My point is, if you are faced with one that doesn't, you better be ready. I'll be playing Ko'olau next month for the third time and you can bet your a** there won't be any bomb & gouge going on there!!

 

BT

[rawdog]

The pages from the book show the optimal target as minimizing OB shots.

 

Minimizing, yes. But eliminating? No.

 

To get the OB shots down to 0 (full elimination of an OB shot), you'd have to aim either so far left or so far short that you'd be seriously hurting your scoring chances.

[chippa13]

going OB for ME, doesn't work. Id rather hit a 5I 200 yards off the tee and relay on my short game more rather than losing shots purposely

 

You're hitting a 5i 200 yards off the tee and making fun of someone, calling them "Rory" for driving 320? Interesting.

 

It's pretty clear that no one is suggesting hitting OB on purpose. It's about recognizing and accepting risk. You're so afraid to make the occasional 6 or 7 off the tee that you're severely limiting your scoring potential. The problem is that your brain remembers that 6 or 7. The loss is measurable in your head. But on the other 49/50 shots the benefit of an optimal strategy is smaller and less visible, so you don't really notice it. But it adds up to better aggregate scoring.

how far do you hit a 5 iron? I am about 185 or so, with roll it can go 200 max....not very long compared to most people...

 

How far I hit my 5 iron isn't relevant to the discussion. This article has Trackman data from PGA pros in 2013. Their average 5 iron carried 194 and the average 6 iron carried 183.

 

So you carry your 5 iron as far as a PGA Tour pro carries his 6. I'd say that's pretty long.

 

Maybe not Rory long, but... ;)

 

Side note, if you're hitting your 5 iron 185, the article has your driver SS being around 105mph. That's well above the average among amateur golfers, anecdotally and based on any study I've read. A 105 mph SS will get you pretty far in this game.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...our-golf-clubs/

 

Maybe he is extremely distance efficient.

[pinestreetgolf]

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/

 

I like the shotgun analogy. My problem is that I never know what choke I'm using till I start playing and sometimes it adjusts itself in the middle of the round.

 

This is for PSG. Just for the record, I understand how the whole "bomb and gouge" theory works. Some courses give you that option, some don't. My point is, if you are faced with one that doesn't, you better be ready. I'll be playing Ko'olau next month for the third time and you can bet your a** there won't be any bomb & gouge going on there!!

 

BT

 

Maybe we are just defining the terms differently. Regardless of how tight the course is, you should aim optimally on every hole to avoid stroke-costing hazards as far up as is safe. I call that bomb-and-gauge (see rawdog's excellent post above for a description of how aiming not in the middle of the fairway is correct even on tight holes). Its all relative.

 

I'm not saying "hit driver every single hole and damn the torpedoes" I'm saying "accuracy usually isn't the middle of the fairway (see rawdog's data on an 80 shooter) and included in an accuracy measurement is distance".

[chippa13]

The pages from the book show the optimal target as minimizing OB shots.

 

Minimizing, yes. But eliminating? No.

 

To get the OB shots down to 0 (full elimination of an OB shot), you'd have to aim either so far left or so far short that you'd be seriously hurting your scoring chances.

 

Agreed, I was just pointing that out to tsecor that nobody is advocating trying to hit OB but sometimes you have to flirt with danger. Reminds me of playing the 18th on the Blue Monster. I wanted to cut the corner where the water creeps in on the left. With my fade, in order to do that my starting point had to be some 10 yards into the lake. If I'd only flown that ball 4 feet longer it would have been perfect. I still want another shot at that bad boy.

[rawdog]

I see one potential issue with Broadies suggestion and that is assuming the 100 golfer can accurately aim. It seems like such a simple thing, but it's not that simple. Yes it's easy to aim 90 degrees left or right, but aiming 15 yds left or right on a drive? How accurately can a 100 golfer aim?

The whole theory is just that...a theory......people have theories on 9/11 and aliens.....people have theories on the moon landing......none of it makes anything factual. its just theories and stats......nothing more.....golf has way too many variables......i hit a squirrel once.......i hit a goose another day......my driver head broke once......but darn, i was super accurate when my ball went 20 yards further than i planned and ended up behind a tree after hitting a rock that i couldn't see from the tee

 

Errors from aiming are baked into the data. The data measures the result of the shot, which would include errors made in aiming.

 

I get what you're saying, but moving someone's scatter plot to the left still includes aiming errors. The person will still aim too far left here, too far left there, but it would all even out over time.

 

Basically, I'm saying they would make the same aiming errors no matter what target they are aiming at, and the data takes that into account.

 

Side note, why did you shot go 20 yards further than you planned? Didn't plan on center contact?

[pinestreetgolf]

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.

 

Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree. It's a meaningless question and doesn't make any point at all. Scoring well is about choosing the best club for the shot you have in front of you. Even if they choose the driver the majority of the time, that doesn't mean the 3wd (or any other possible option) is any less important because the usage off the tee is less. When they need it, they need it and it's just as important. Not having the 3wd would just mean having to go to a shorter club (5wd, 2 iron) when the driver is a poor choice - which could put them even further back and more at a disadvantage (even by your logic).

 

If you don't believe that - go back and read Monte's thread on his Champions Tour qualifier finals. If anyone would be a candidate for bomb and gouge it would be him, and yet it seemed pretty clear to me that he significantly regretted not having a reliable fairway wood swing/club combination he could use off the tee for that course.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...r-quest-thread/

 

unfortunately lots of clinic posts in there to wade through as well - start on page 5 and read through I think, at least page 9

 

BTW - I'll bet Henrik Stenson would choose to give up his driver ;-)

 

 

Sorry but these types of attempts to take something that's not even close to being an absolute and trying to turn it into one is way more hurtful to the discussion then helpful.

 

I suppose. That was one line of my post, but the point I was trying to make is that in anecdotal observation I find better players are much more aggressive than weaker players. I think part of what makes them better is *Because* they are more aggressive. Broadie discusses this in his book when he talks about aim points at length. But of course you are correct - if you choose driver and go play the Bridges in Mississippi you'll regret it. My observations on this re: better players being much more aggressive are anecdotal, I have nothing to back it up.

 

There are of course other explanations - having a better short game allows more aggression, etc... It was an anecdotal post that might not be that valuable. I was more driving at that better players are more aggressive than its literally valuable that more better players who keep driver in the bag.

[JeffreySpicoli]

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/

 

I like the shotgun analogy. My problem is that I never know what choke I'm using till I start playing and sometimes it adjusts itself in the middle of the round.

 

This is for PSG. Just for the record, I understand how the whole "bomb and gouge" theory works. Some courses give you that option, some don't. My point is, if you are faced with one that doesn't, you better be ready. I'll be playing Ko'olau next month for the third time and you can bet your a** there won't be any bomb & gouge going on there!!

 

BT

 

Maybe we are just defining the terms differently. Regardless of how tight the course is, you should aim optimally on every hole to avoid stroke-costing hazards as far up the fairway as possible. I call that bomb-and-gauge (see rawdog's excellent post above for a description of how aiming not in the middle of the fairway is correct even on tight holes). Its all relative.

 

I'm not saying "hit driver every single hole and damn the torpedoes" I'm saying "accuracy isn't the middle of the fairway (see rawdog's data on an 80 shooter) and included in an accuracy measurement is distance".

 

Fawcett's Rules of Thumb for Tee Shots is interesting . . .

 

1. Length is the most important factor for tee shots. Think Driver first and adjust down.

 

2. 65 yards between penalty hazards to challenge those hazards. Water and OB, OB on both sides, water on both sides.

 

3. When there is trouble on both sides of fairway (lake-sand-trees-OB) either carrying or being short of one hazard is likely ideal - 40 yards between hazards to challenge them. Lesser of two evils.

 

4. Stick to YOUR shot shape on almost ALL tee shots. Use strategy for doglegs, not shape.

 

5. There is little to be gained by forcing it closer once you will have a wedge in your hand. Being closer is better, but do not take excess risk to gain that yardage.

 

​6. Do not think "I can't miss it there". Have a sound strategy and then simply let the percentages play out. You should miss it everywhere occasionally.

 

[rawdog]

The pages from the book show the optimal target as minimizing OB shots.

 

Minimizing, yes. But eliminating? No.

 

To get the OB shots down to 0 (full elimination of an OB shot), you'd have to aim either so far left or so far short that you'd be seriously hurting your scoring chances.

 

Agreed, I was just pointing that out to tsecor that nobody is advocating trying to hit OB but sometimes you have to flirt with danger. Reminds me of playing the 18th on the Blue Monster. I wanted to cut the corner where the water creeps in on the left. With my fade, in order to do that my starting point had to be some 10 yards into the lake. If I'd only flown that ball 4 feet longer it would have been perfect. I still want another shot at that bad boy.

 

Word. I just wanted to use the 0 OB scenario as example of why eliminating OB shots entirely is silly.

 

You mention the classic "risk-reward" type of scenario that folks on here talk about all the time. You gave an anecdote of obvious risk-reward. Next time just swing a little harder, right? Ha.

 

But really, nearly every shot we take, every shot shape we choose, every club decision comes down to risk-reward. We're good at choosing correctly in the obvious situations. Where our brains can't do the math fast enough (or accurately enough, because ya know, our memories are biased), we tend to err on the cautious side. And that's a sub-optimal strategy.

 

Unfortunately (fortunately?), you don't play that hole enough to see the numbers play out and what the winning play is. I like the gutsy play!

[chippa13]

I smoked that 12.5* driving iron but there was a gust.

[tsecor]

going OB for ME, doesn't work. Id rather hit a 5I 200 yards off the tee and relay on my short game more rather than losing shots purposely

 

You're hitting a 5i 200 yards off the tee and making fun of someone, calling them "Rory" for driving 320? Interesting.

 

It's pretty clear that no one is suggesting hitting OB on purpose. It's about recognizing and accepting risk. You're so afraid to make the occasional 6 or 7 off the tee that you're severely limiting your scoring potential. The problem is that your brain remembers that 6 or 7. The loss is measurable in your head. But on the other 49/50 shots the benefit of an optimal strategy is smaller and less visible, so you don't really notice it. But it adds up to better aggregate scoring.

how far do you hit a 5 iron? I am about 185 or so, with roll it can go 200 max....not very long compared to most people...

 

How far I hit my 5 iron isn't relevant to the discussion. This article has Trackman data from PGA pros in 2013. Their average 5 iron carried 194 and the average 6 iron carried 183.

 

So you carry your 5 iron as far as a PGA Tour pro carries his 6. I'd say that's pretty long.

 

Maybe not Rory long, but... ;)

 

Side note, if you're hitting your 5 iron 185, the article has your driver SS being around 105mph. That's well above the average among amateur golfers, anecdotally and based on any study I've read. A 105 mph SS will get you pretty far in this game.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...our-golf-clubs/

That's close but SS means nothing if i cant hit my target!! I shot 78 on Sunday and would have been in the 72 range if i found the fairway more off the tee....should have used the 3 wood more

[Stuart_G]

but the point I was trying to make is that in anecdotal observation I find better players are much more aggressive than weaker players. I think part of what makes them better is *Because* they are more aggressive.

 

Interesting question but I don't think I see it that way. Aggressive play is certainly conducive to winning so I can see how it might seem that way but that's very different thing that what you are concluding. In a field of very good players, to stand out one likely does have to play somewhat aggressively. But there are more examples of those who played aggressively and crashed and burned because of it than those that played aggressively and came out on top. It's only the ones that play aggressively and manage to pull it off that come out on top (and we take note of).

 

 

I will say that I might agree with a highly modified version of that viewpoint. Those that push their limits (very different from unqualified aggressiveness) gain a better understanding of those limits (as well as weaknesses) and are then better able to manage their game - both in terms of playing decisions and practice decisions. Of course the ones that push those limits and don't think to learn from them - that aggressiveness does nothing to make them any better.

[rawdog]

going OB for ME, doesn't work. Id rather hit a 5I 200 yards off the tee and relay on my short game more rather than losing shots purposely

 

You're hitting a 5i 200 yards off the tee and making fun of someone, calling them "Rory" for driving 320? Interesting.

 

It's pretty clear that no one is suggesting hitting OB on purpose. It's about recognizing and accepting risk. You're so afraid to make the occasional 6 or 7 off the tee that you're severely limiting your scoring potential. The problem is that your brain remembers that 6 or 7. The loss is measurable in your head. But on the other 49/50 shots the benefit of an optimal strategy is smaller and less visible, so you don't really notice it. But it adds up to better aggregate scoring.

how far do you hit a 5 iron? I am about 185 or so, with roll it can go 200 max....not very long compared to most people...

 

How far I hit my 5 iron isn't relevant to the discussion. This article has Trackman data from PGA pros in 2013. Their average 5 iron carried 194 and the average 6 iron carried 183.

 

So you carry your 5 iron as far as a PGA Tour pro carries his 6. I'd say that's pretty long.

 

Maybe not Rory long, but... ;)

 

Side note, if you're hitting your 5 iron 185, the article has your driver SS being around 105mph. That's well above the average among amateur golfers, anecdotally and based on any study I've read. A 105 mph SS will get you pretty far in this game.

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...our-golf-clubs/

That's close but SS means nothing if i cant hit my target!! I shot 78 on Sunday and would have been in the 72 range if i found the fairway more off the tee.

 

But alas, you have no way to demonstrate that would be the case. The what-ifs are all in your head. You have no model by which to reasonably predict what would have happened.

 

Also, your 78 means nothing to me. I don't know the course rating, I don't know the conditions. I don't know your handicap. I don't know if that's good or bad for you.

 

Not trying to be callous, but your statement literally proves nothing to anyone other than you. And even then, it's not based on anything other than you telling yourself that.