3W vs Driver off the tee

[pinestreetgolf]

Go buy a driver with a shaft length that fits you. 44" or 44.5" MAX. Do don't go over that length!

 

I promise you will hit more fairways

 

What if 44 or 44.5" doesn't fit him?

 

Cut your driver to 36" and use the highest loft 460cc head you can find. You'd hit every fairway!!! Omg you've solved golf

[jewofgolf]

Another thing that pops into my mind on this topic is the length of birdie putt and likelihood of making it. For me, it's not some smooth function (anecdotal but over the years and trying to be objective). I'm not going to go into great detail, but me having 80 yards vs 100 yards matters a great deal because 10 feet vs 15 feet away for birdie is very different. I would say I make about 60% of 10 footers and 20% of 15 footers. When you're trying to go low the key is hitting some close approaches

 

If I have 10 par 4's where my tee shot strategy really matters (par 5's on a decent course are always a driver) and I choose to leave 30 yards on the table 5 times, I could be giving up alot of strokes. As long as it's not a bad play (based on DECADE), the difference could play out on average as follows:

 

Normally the hole is shorter or else I would hit driver. So let's say I'm hitting 9 irons vs Sand wedge (30 yards). 3w and 9i: 5 fairways, 4 greens with approaches to 15-30 feet and 1 nGIR where I save par. Likely make 0-1 birdie. D and SW: 3-4 fairways with approaches to 8-20 feet and likely 1-3 birdies.

 

If my main focus is going as low as I can when I'm on, the difference would be 2 strokes on those 5 holes. To me, that's the difference between squeaking in to a qualifier with 71 and playing a solid 73 round and going home empty handed.

 

I would prefer to spend some time hitting recovery shots for the misses and maximize my birdie potential.

[JeffreySpicoli]

Another thing that pops into my mind on this topic is the length of birdie putt and likelihood of making it. For me, it's not some smooth function (anecdotal but over the years and trying to be objective). I'm not going to go into great detail, but me having 80 yards vs 100 yards matters a great deal because 10 feet vs 15 feet away for birdie is very different. I would say I make about 60% of 10 footers and 20% of 15 footers. When you're trying to go low the key is hitting some close approaches

 

If I have 10 par 4's where my tee shot strategy really matters (par 5's on a decent course are always a driver) and I choose to leave 30 yards on the table 5 times, I could be giving up alot of strokes. As long as it's not a bad play (based on DECADE), the difference could play out on average as follows:

 

Normally the hole is shorter or else I would hit driver. So let's say I'm hitting 9 irons vs Sand wedge (30 yards). 3w and 9i: 5 fairways, 4 greens with approaches to 15-30 feet and 1 nGIR where I save par. Likely make 0-1 birdie. D and SW: 3-4 fairways with approaches to 8-20 feet and likely 1-3 birdies.

 

If my main focus is going as low as I can when I'm on, the difference would be 2 strokes on those 5 holes. To me, that's the difference between squeaking in to a qualifier with 71 and playing a solid 73 round and going home empty handed.

 

I would prefer to spend some time hitting recovery shots for the misses and maximize my birdie potential.

 

Agreed. Part of what I think some individuals miss is the cumulative impact of, say, an extra 30 yards on each drive. That might be 0.10 strokes gained per par 4 & 5. Not much to risk if I'm only thinking of one hole. But when it's 14 holes and I'm gaining 1.4 strokes per round over four rounds, then I've gained nearly 6 strokes. Not something to be ignored.

 

[pinestreetgolf]

Another thing that pops into my mind on this topic is the length of birdie putt and likelihood of making it. For me, it's not some smooth function (anecdotal but over the years and trying to be objective). I'm not going to go into great detail, but me having 80 yards vs 100 yards matters a great deal because 10 feet vs 15 feet away for birdie is very different. I would say I make about 60% of 10 footers and 20% of 15 footers. When you're trying to go low the key is hitting some close approaches

 

If I have 10 par 4's where my tee shot strategy really matters (par 5's on a decent course are always a driver) and I choose to leave 30 yards on the table 5 times, I could be giving up alot of strokes. As long as it's not a bad play (based on DECADE), the difference could play out on average as follows:

 

Normally the hole is shorter or else I would hit driver. So let's say I'm hitting 9 irons vs Sand wedge (30 yards). 3w and 9i: 5 fairways, 4 greens with approaches to 15-30 feet and 1 nGIR where I save par. Likely make 0-1 birdie. D and SW: 3-4 fairways with approaches to 8-20 feet and likely 1-3 birdies.

 

If my main focus is going as low as I can when I'm on, the difference would be 2 strokes on those 5 holes. To me, that's the difference between squeaking in to a qualifier with 71 and playing a solid 73 round and going home empty handed.

 

I would prefer to spend some time hitting recovery shots for the misses and maximize my birdie potential.

 

This is absolutely correct. If you think about golf misses in terms of percent (which you should, since it is determined by degrees open or closed at impact) being closer makes you more accurate on its own (its physics - the more open or closed you are at impact matters less the ball is traveling). When you pair that with the fact that virtually every shot between 40 and 15 feet is exactly the same 97% of the time (a two putt) and that you can still make par from off the green at a pretty good clip from "good misses" (nGIR) then not bombing it is a poor way to play absent hazards.

 

I'd caution you on the putting. Those putting statistics would you put you with the best putters in the world. The PGA tour average from 5-10 feet (not 10, 5-10) is only 59.33% and the medican is Fabian Gomez (56.11%). 60% of 10 footers would be absolute incredible putting.

 

That said, you ARE correct (just a bit off on the detail) that putting is *exponential*. It doesn't advance in a linear progression. A 10 foot putt is twice as hard as a 5 foot putt and a 20 foot putt is (roughly) twice as hard as a 10 foot putt. It advances 2-4-8-16 etc... NOT 1-2-3-4 - its not a smooth curve of make % as you go further from the hole.

 

It is better to hit two shots to 25 feet and one to 2 feet (52 total) than three shots to 17.55 feet. This is what the poke it up the fairway crowd don't grasp. You are better off with one extremely close and two farther away than three 10% looks *because* the difficulty curve increases exponentially. The value of hitting it to 3 feet is way higher than the value of hitting it to 13 instead of 10. You don't play good golf by bunting it around and trying to make 20 footers.

[pinestreetgolf]

Another thing that pops into my mind on this topic is the length of birdie putt and likelihood of making it. For me, it's not some smooth function (anecdotal but over the years and trying to be objective). I'm not going to go into great detail, but me having 80 yards vs 100 yards matters a great deal because 10 feet vs 15 feet away for birdie is very different. I would say I make about 60% of 10 footers and 20% of 15 footers. When you're trying to go low the key is hitting some close approaches

 

If I have 10 par 4's where my tee shot strategy really matters (par 5's on a decent course are always a driver) and I choose to leave 30 yards on the table 5 times, I could be giving up alot of strokes. As long as it's not a bad play (based on DECADE), the difference could play out on average as follows:

 

Normally the hole is shorter or else I would hit driver. So let's say I'm hitting 9 irons vs Sand wedge (30 yards). 3w and 9i: 5 fairways, 4 greens with approaches to 15-30 feet and 1 nGIR where I save par. Likely make 0-1 birdie. D and SW: 3-4 fairways with approaches to 8-20 feet and likely 1-3 birdies.

 

If my main focus is going as low as I can when I'm on, the difference would be 2 strokes on those 5 holes. To me, that's the difference between squeaking in to a qualifier with 71 and playing a solid 73 round and going home empty handed.

 

I would prefer to spend some time hitting recovery shots for the misses and maximize my birdie potential.

 

Agreed. Part of what I think some individuals miss is the cumulative impact of, say, an extra 30 yards on each drive. That might be 0.10 strokes gained per par 4 & 5. Not much to risk if I'm only thinking of one hole. But when it's 14 holes and I'm gaining 1.4 strokes per round over four rounds, then I've gained nearly 6 strokes. Not something to be ignored.

 

Exactly!

 

Most amateurs have a series of tournaments that they care about (or rounds, for example when a parent comes into town or whatever). I care about six (mid am, am open, city champ, club champ, etc...) and I'll play in each one for the next probably 25-30 years and they are all multiple rounds. Three tenths of a stroke per round is about 137 strokes over that time period! If some of those strokes happen to show up in bunches I might win a solid trophy someday (we can all dream).

 

Its like that saying a dollar here a dollar there and soon you are talking about real money. With enough rounds fractions of a stroke are critical.

 

It just baffles me that this is even a debate. Hitting driver is fun. Poking nonsense up the middle isn't nearly as fun. Tee it up, stay on balance, and slam the MF'er!!

[North Butte]

A lot of the poke it up the fairway crowd are motivated by fear rather than reason. I'm very prone to fearful decision-making myself and understand the urge to minimize risk rather than maximize potential.

 

That fear is not entirely misplaced in the world of "card and pencil" golf BTW. If you are prone to wild shots and you don't have a rock-solid recovery and short game, getting in trouble can snowball into disaster under actual Stroke Play rules. If you are in a medal play tournament (no ESC, no picking up) then every wild tee shot opens up the possibility of an 8 or 10 or who knows what all score on one hole. You can't possibly gain enough partial-stroke advantages on the other 17 holes to offset a double-digit score on one disaster hole.

 

Of course the fallacy in making fearful "strategic" choices is that poking it down the fairway with an iron instead of driver does not, in fact, eliminate the chance of a snowman or worse. But it's easy to convince ourselves the so-called "safe play" does just that. Human nature over-emphasizes the possibility of disaster and under-appreciates the benefits of small, incremental advantages gained on average.

[pinestreetgolf]

A lot of the poke it up the fairway crowd are motivated by fear rather than reason. I'm very prone to fearful decision-making myself and understand the urge to minimize risk rather than maximize potential.

 

That fear is not entirely misplaced in the world of "card and pencil" golf BTW. If you are prone to wild shots and you don't have a rock-solid recovery and short game, getting in trouble can snowball into disaster under actual Stroke Play rules. If you are in a medal play tournament (no ESC, no picking up) then every wild tee shot opens up the possibility of an 8 or 10 or who knows what all score on one hole. You can't possibly gain enough partial-stroke advantages on the other 17 holes to offset a double-digit score on one disaster hole.

 

Of course the fallacy in making fearful "strategic" choices is that poking it down the fairway with an iron instead of driver does not, in fact, eliminate the chance of a snowman or worse. But it's easy to convince ourselves the so-called "safe play" does just that. Human nature over-emphasizes the possibility of disaster and under-appreciates the benefits of small, incremental advantages gained on average.

 

Great post.

 

It also is worth noting that in a tournament 72 and 85 are exactly the same score if you arn't self-conscious about yourself. They're both not first place.

 

To channel my inner Kanye - "Whatcha think I play golf for, to post a f****n 84?!"

[Ri_Redneck]

Another thing that pops into my mind on this topic is the length of birdie putt and likelihood of making it. For me, it's not some smooth function (anecdotal but over the years and trying to be objective). I'm not going to go into great detail, but me having 80 yards vs 100 yards matters a great deal because 10 feet vs 15 feet away for birdie is very different. I would say I make about 60% of 10 footers and 20% of 15 footers. When you're trying to go low the key is hitting some close approaches

 

If I have 10 par 4's where my tee shot strategy really matters (par 5's on a decent course are always a driver) and I choose to leave 30 yards on the table 5 times, I could be giving up alot of strokes. As long as it's not a bad play (based on DECADE), the difference could play out on average as follows:

 

Normally the hole is shorter or else I would hit driver. So let's say I'm hitting 9 irons vs Sand wedge (30 yards). 3w and 9i: 5 fairways, 4 greens with approaches to 15-30 feet and 1 nGIR where I save par. Likely make 0-1 birdie. D and SW: 3-4 fairways with approaches to 8-20 feet and likely 1-3 birdies.

 

If my main focus is going as low as I can when I'm on, the difference would be 2 strokes on those 5 holes. To me, that's the difference between squeaking in to a qualifier with 71 and playing a solid 73 round and going home empty handed.

 

I would prefer to spend some time hitting recovery shots for the misses and maximize my birdie potential.

 

This is absolutely correct. If you think about golf misses in terms of percent (which you should, since it is determined by degrees open or closed at impact) being closer makes you more accurate on its own (its physics - the more open or closed you are at impact matters less the ball is traveling). When you pair that with the fact that virtually every shot between 40 and 15 feet is exactly the same 97% of the time (a two putt) and that you can still make par from off the green at a pretty good clip from "good misses" (nGIR) then not bombing it is a poor way to play absent hazards.

 

I'd caution you on the putting. Those putting statistics would you put you with the best putters in the world. The PGA tour average from 5-10 feet (not 10, 5-10) is only 59.33% and the medican is Fabian Gomez (56.11%). 60% of 10 footers would be absolute incredible putting.

 

That said, you ARE correct (just a bit off on the detail) that putting is *exponential*. It doesn't advance in a linear progression. A 10 foot putt is twice as hard as a 5 foot putt and a 20 foot putt is (roughly) twice as hard as a 10 foot putt. It advances 2-4-8-16 etc... NOT 1-2-3-4 - its not a smooth curve of make % as you go further from the hole.

 

It is better to hit two shots to 25 feet and one to 2 feet (52 total) than three shots to 17.55 feet. This is what the poke it up the fairway crowd don't grasp. You are better off with one extremely close and two farther away than three 10% looks *because* the difficulty curve increases exponentially. The value of hitting it to 3 feet is way higher than the value of hitting it to 13 instead of 10. You don't play good golf by bunting it around and trying to make 20 footers.

Again, my argument from the beginning was not based on accuracy of approach shots, it was about distance control. I've hit many shots straight at the pin, but if I'm 40' long or short, I still have a long putt! This was the point I was trying to make to you earlier on in this thread and why I played to a full club for years, It's because, for me, with my full GW my distance control was lots better than with touch shots from 20 yds closer.

 

Yes, I'm working a ton on the touch shots now and when I get good distance control within 100, things are gonna change. Thanks PSG.

 

BT

[Pepperturbo]

I can always hit the fairway with 3wd

 

*hardest eye roll that is humanly possible*

 

I suspect the difference between you and I with 3wd or 2i; I am not trying to hit the ball as far as humanly possible. My 3wd is +/- 230yds and 2i is 215+. Roll dem dar crazy eyes hard... little one :beach:

 

Brings to mind how many tour players can't find fairways with 3wd or long irons... pretty sad. I don't recall which old tour player said it, think Azinger. You pull 3wd or long iron to hit the fairway, NOT miss the fairway.

 

I have no doubt you are pretty good with a three wood and pretty accurate besides. Most of this thread was about how our brains lie to us in absolutes with nonsense phrases like "can always" that don't actually mean anything. Are you saying you always have? Are you saying you always will?

 

"I can always hit the fairway with 3 wood" is meaningless. Of course you "can" - if you use "have" or "will" you are actually saying something. What does "can always" mean, exactly?

 

Basically, 70% of the time you hit the fairway every time.

 

Always is how it feels, and conditions keep it from ever being 100%. The only time I miss the fairway is when I am attempting to hit the ball further than stock yardage. 230yrds straight is easy, as is 215+ 2 iron. All my clubs have three yardages; stock, 10+ and 10-, influenced by swing. I use to keep stats, but quit that many years ago.

 

Let me try and describe my mental process. In my previous life, I developed various skills, under pressure; one was hitting a 6-8" target at 600+ meters, another throwing a knife at 15yds, and .45 at 20yds and 50yds, among others. Learned not to bull sh** myself about targets as bull sh** has consequences.

 

With that kind of orientation, when looking at a fairway I am thinking its easy to hit, especially if wide. A great many golfers that I play with have one thing in common. They are swinging out of their shoes, no matter what, even when its not required. Often distorting the shaft missing left and right as they try to hit the ball as far as possible, hoping not to pay consequences. But they pay all the time. It doesn't matter whether its driver or wood, even hybrids or irons. They are too accepting of missing the fairway with any club.

 

That's the mentality of the current crop these days, swing as hard as you can. People hear, hit it hard and as long as you can, and straighten it out later. Problem, few learn to straighten it out or tone it done. Its a predisposition and choice. I, on the other hand, chose not to swing out of my shoes and find my target, so face less dispersion. The only time I will go for it with 3wd or driver is when money's on the line and conditions merit taking a risk.

[JeffreySpicoli]

Spieth describes his tee shot at Birkdale and notes that his target was the rough . . .

 

"The drive on 13, I’ll say it now because on the coverage it was quoted as being 100 yards right. It was not 100 yards right,” Spieth said with a big smile. “Our fairway is the right rough on that hole. It was raining. When there’s water on the ball, the ball squirts to the right. Now, I missed the right side of the fairway by 20-ish yards, it hit a guy in the head and went over the mound. So, it was essentially 20 yards offline."

 

http://www.morningread.com/features/94f8bffa-7b5c-40e4-a927-42558aa7e444

 

[pinestreetgolf]

Spieth describes his tee shot at Birkdale and notes that his target was the rough . . .

 

"The drive on 13, I’ll say it now because on the coverage it was quoted as being 100 yards right. It was not 100 yards right,” Spieth said with a big smile. “Our fairway is the right rough on that hole. It was raining. When there’s water on the ball, the ball squirts to the right. Now, I missed the right side of the fairway by 20-ish yards, it hit a guy in the head and went over the mound. So, it was essentially 20 yards offline."

 

http://www.morningre...27-42558aa7e444

 

Spieth posts on GolfWRX as some dude named PinestreetGolf.

 

That is exactly the approach to the game everyone should take. The fairway is irrelevant. How far on or off your target line the ball went is all that matters.

 

If you find yourself tee'ing up in the middle of the tee box and aiming up the middle of the fairway there is a 99% chance you are not shooting the best scores you could.

 

Unfortunately, we all can't be 100% with a 3 wood and a 2 iron like Pepper and "only miss because of the conditions" so mere mortals like Spieth have to improvise.

[matchavez]

Retitle this thread "Study of Confirmation Bias in Golf"

[SnapHooker_307]

I keep trying to use a fairway wood off the tee, but I tend to hook a fairway wood even more than I do my driver, so it seems pointless until I can get that figured out.

[jacobEDGE]

Fitter gave me an option of getting a Tour Edge EX Beta 3-wood, and bend it a degree strong. So using a 12º 3-wood off the tee. My current 15º 3-wood gets me same distance as my driver, but better accuracy. The smaller club head really gives me a much more comfortable feel standing over the ball on the tee. So having a similar size/shaped club but 3 degrees stronger off the tee might just work. Give me driver-length distance but still have the accuracy of a fairway wood.

[matchavez]

Fitter gave me an option of getting a Tour Edge EX Beta 3-wood, and bend it a degree strong. So using a 12º 3-wood off the tee. My current 15º 3-wood gets me same distance as my driver, but better accuracy. The smaller club head really gives me a much more comfortable feel standing over the ball on the tee. So having a similar size/shaped club but 3 degrees stronger off the tee might just work. Give me driver-length distance but still have the accuracy of a fairway wood.

 

I won't re-hash all the parts about a 3-wood being "more accurate" or not. I would just say to anyone who ends up with this type of outcome:

 

1. Your driver does not fit. If you're getting the same distance with a 3-wood, your driver is not fit to what you need.

2. If you're getting fairway distance from your driver, you're not hitting your driver with the same confidence of your fairway, or

2a. You are not comfortable hitting a driver "shot", which is +AoA.

 

None of these are bad things on their own, but if you understand that physics guides distance, it means that your equipment as it relates to you putting energy into the ball is different than what you would normally expect with a good driver-3wood combo. Again, you don't have to do any of this, but I'd leave you with one bit of advice... sometimes when you're hitting your "longest" club for a while, the second longest club becomes a stable, straight friend in times of doubt. This doesn't change because your longest wood has a 3 under it.

 

Cheers.

[Brattina1221]

It really all depends on what the shot requires (course management), if I "must" hit the fairway, I will use the 3W, but I can hit my driver very well, if I am "feeling" it I'll hit driver every time I can...the 3W is for sure a fairway finder for me, but I love my driver, so it is all about the course management for me...

 

This 100%. Started using my 3 much more lately for the same reason. Some days the banana comes out of the driver, and when that happens the trusty 3 is there.

[Stuart_G]

Surprised no one's brought up the Wyndham results yet.

 

Winner - no driver in the bag.

Second place - used a driving iron for the vast majority of tee shots.

 

 

Everyone has to find what works best for them.

[JeffreySpicoli]

Surprised no one's brought up the Wyndham results yet.

 

Winner - no driver in the bag.

Second place - used a driving iron for the vast majority of tee shots.

 

 

Everyone has to find what works best for them.

 

We've been over this numerous times: there are always outliers yet Strokes Gained consistently shows that both pros and amateurs score better with driver off the tee.

[Mukky]

im not mocking it. Im just saying his theory doesn't hold water, especially when you playa course like erin hills and your theory doesn't hold water either....but were off point anyway....the topic is the 3w vs driver.....should fitting be changed? I mean if you get on a monitor and field test a driver with a much shorter shaft but hit it straight and 20 yard shorter, shouldn't that be factored in?

 

Its pretty on-point, actually. You arn't getting straighter. Your just getting shorter on the same line.

 

 

 

Which golfer is the "most accurate", 1, 2, 3 or 4? Two are in the fairway, ones in the trees, one is OB. Are 1 and 2, in your mind, "more accurate" than 3 and 4? (pretend the red ballflight line is straight). If you had to place a bet on which of these players was the best based solely on this diagram, which would you pick?

 

If shortening the shaft changes the line, it should be done. But if it just reduces speed so you are shorter on the same line, its silly.

 

More to the point, which golfer, above, would you rather be? I mean, two of them are in the fairway...

 

You contradict your self horribly in this thread. You claim that you aren't anymore accurate with a 3wd vs a driver and that you are just shorter, so it just appears more accurate, however you also state that you are MUCH more accurate with an 8 iron vs a 6 because it has more loft and is shorter....

 

Do you see the contradiction here?

[JeffreySpicoli]

im not mocking it. Im just saying his theory doesn't hold water, especially when you playa course like erin hills and your theory doesn't hold water either....but were off point anyway....the topic is the 3w vs driver.....should fitting be changed? I mean if you get on a monitor and field test a driver with a much shorter shaft but hit it straight and 20 yard shorter, shouldn't that be factored in?

 

Its pretty on-point, actually. You arn't getting straighter. Your just getting shorter on the same line.

 

 

 

Which golfer is the "most accurate", 1, 2, 3 or 4? Two are in the fairway, ones in the trees, one is OB. Are 1 and 2, in your mind, "more accurate" than 3 and 4? (pretend the red ballflight line is straight). If you had to place a bet on which of these players was the best based solely on this diagram, which would you pick?

 

If shortening the shaft changes the line, it should be done. But if it just reduces speed so you are shorter on the same line, its silly.

 

More to the point, which golfer, above, would you rather be? I mean, two of them are in the fairway...

 

You contradict your self horribly in this thread. You claim that you aren't anymore accurate with a 3wd vs a driver and that you are just shorter, so it just appears more accurate, however you also state that you are MUCH more accurate with an 8 iron vs a 6 because it has more loft and is shorter....

 

Do you see the contradiction here?

 

There's no contradiction in what PSG said.

 

Offline by x degrees is always closer to the target line when the distance is shorter.

[pinestreetgolf]

im not mocking it. Im just saying his theory doesn't hold water, especially when you playa course like erin hills and your theory doesn't hold water either....but were off point anyway....the topic is the 3w vs driver.....should fitting be changed? I mean if you get on a monitor and field test a driver with a much shorter shaft but hit it straight and 20 yard shorter, shouldn't that be factored in?

 

Its pretty on-point, actually. You arn't getting straighter. Your just getting shorter on the same line.

 

 

 

Which golfer is the "most accurate", 1, 2, 3 or 4? Two are in the fairway, ones in the trees, one is OB. Are 1 and 2, in your mind, "more accurate" than 3 and 4? (pretend the red ballflight line is straight). If you had to place a bet on which of these players was the best based solely on this diagram, which would you pick?

 

If shortening the shaft changes the line, it should be done. But if it just reduces speed so you are shorter on the same line, its silly.

 

More to the point, which golfer, above, would you rather be? I mean, two of them are in the fairway...

 

You contradict your self horribly in this thread. You claim that you aren't anymore accurate with a 3wd vs a driver and that you are just shorter, so it just appears more accurate, however you also state that you are MUCH more accurate with an 8 iron vs a 6 because it has more loft and is shorter....

 

Do you see the contradiction here?

 

That isn't what I said.

 

First, I said some people arn't more accurate with a 3 wood. Some are. Some get fooled, not all.

 

Second, you'll notice the 8 versus 6 comment isn't actually in the post you quoted. When I was discussing the 3 wood versus driver I was discussing how you decide if a club has made you more accurate, which is a question of angular accuracy (how far, as a percent of distance, is a ball from your target line). When I was discussing the 6 versus the 8, I was discussing proximity (how far from the hole your ball comes to rest). Its a 28 page thread, and you've successfully cherry picked two sentences to place next to each other but what we were actually discussing at those times was completely different.

 

The entire reason I posted was because "fairway" and "accurate" are too complex to have a single definition. When we evaluate clubs or ourselves, we have to equalize for distance. When we *choose which club to hit*, we evaluate solely for proximity. It doesn't matter if you hit club X better than club Y if you hit club Y closer to the hole you should hit club Y while playing. That tells you nothing about your equipment or what you need to practice.

 

Proximity to hole and deviation from target line are not the same thing. You have called them both "accuracy" here.

 

EDIT

Good post in response above mine.

[Stuart_G]

We've been over this numerous times:

 

Yes we have. So it's surprising you missed the point I was really making.

 

there are always outliers yet Strokes Gained consistently shows that both pros and amateurs score better with driver off the tee.

 

BTW "outliers" is not an accurate term in this case. That means a fairly significantly abnormal statistical datum point. In this case, we have results that may not match the statistical average but still is neither uncommon nor unusual.

 

http://mathworld.wol...om/Outlier.html

 

Which brings us back to the real point (again). Statistical averages are not universal truths or valid for everyone. Everyone is unique and has to look at their own performance and results to make any decisions.

 

which is exactly why:

 

Everyone has to find what works best for them.

[pinestreetgolf]

We've been over this numerous times:

 

Yes we have. So it's surprising you missed the point I was really making.

 

there are always outliers yet Strokes Gained consistently shows that both pros and amateurs score better with driver off the tee.

 

BTW "outliers" is not an accurate term in this case. That means a fairly significantly abnormal statistical datum point. In this case, we have results that may not match the statistical average but still is neither uncommon nor unusual.

 

http://mathworld.wol...om/Outlier.html

 

Which brings us back to the real point (again). Statistical averages are not universal truths or valid for everyone. Everyone is unique and has to look at their own performance and results to make any decisions.

 

which is exactly why:

 

Everyone has to find what works best for them.

 

So I'm clear, Stuart, you don't think there are any hard and fast rules here about the most efficient way for an amateur golfer to get better? Whether 10 hours spent on the putting green does as much for a 10 caps score as 10 hours on the range is just totally player dependent? We can't make any rules or conclusions based on this data?

 

I don't think anyone would argue with you if you said there was more than one way to get good, and more than one tee strategy that could allow a theoretical player to go low. Are you saying that all approaches are strategies are of equal efficiency, and it is simply a matter of a player figuring out what "type" of player they are?

 

Just because player X found success with method Y doesn't make make method Y the most efficient route to becoming better or provide the best percentage toward success. The Patriots won the super bowl from 28-0 down, but nobody would argue that team had to "find what was right for them" and that was being down by 28 points in the second half. You would argue they won despite that, not because of it. Golfers who buck these trends are posting low scores in spite of the fact that they ignore these things, not because they ignore them.

[JeffreySpicoli]

We've been over this numerous times:

 

Yes we have. So it's surprising you missed the point I was really making.

 

there are always outliers yet Strokes Gained consistently shows that both pros and amateurs score better with driver off the tee.

 

BTW "outliers" is not an accurate term in this case. That means a fairly significantly abnormal statistical datum point. In this case, we have results that may not match the statistical average but still is neither uncommon nor unusual.

 

http://mathworld.wol...om/Outlier.html

 

Which brings us back to the real point (again). Statistical averages are not universal truths or valid for everyone. Everyone is unique and has to look at their own performance and results to make any decisions.

 

which is exactly why:

 

Everyone has to find what works best for them.

 

Actually the point is Stenson's performance off the tee, not that he won a tournament.

 

You're trying to promote your position that everyone is unique and you're not addressing driving performance.

[Stuart_G]

So I'm clear, Stuart, you don't think there are any hard and fast rules here about the most efficient way for an amateur golfer to get better? Whether 10 hours spent on the putting green does as much for a 10 caps score as 10 hours on the range is just totally player dependent? We can't make any rules or conclusions based on this data?

 

First of all, I see this thread as more a question of how best to use the abilities and skill levels a player has at the time they play. What to do to as far as work to improve one's abilities is a completely different question and probably best reserved for a different thread. But simply put though, the answer would be similar, one would have to look at ones own actual results (say there own stroke's gained statistics) to see where time might best be spent in instruction or practice. But even that is subject to restrictions that may be specific to the individual. Generalizations w/o looking at the player specific data will always be hit-or-miss.

 

 

Are you saying that all approaches are strategies are of equal efficiency, and it is simply a matter of a player figuring out what "type" of player they are?

 

Not saying anything like that. Quite the opposite, categorizations into different types is just another form of generalization. I'm only saying that statistical analysis of a large population only provides ideas of possibilities. Each individual has to validate those ideas and possibilities to see if they really apply to them or not. They just can't assume that they will.

 

Just because player X found success with method Y doesn't make make method Y the most efficient route to becoming better or provide the best percentage toward success.

 

It does make it the most effective route to being able to score better with their current level of abilities when that success is compared against the results that showed the alternative options (other then Y) produced less success.

[Stuart_G]

Actually the point is Stenson's performance off the tee, not that he won a tournament.

 

You're trying to promote your position that everyone is unique and you're not addressing driving performance.

 

No, yes, and not correct.

[JeffreySpicoli]

Actually the point is Stenson's performance off the tee, not that he won a tournament.

 

You're trying to promote your position that everyone is unique and you're not addressing driving performance.

 

No, yes, and not correct.

 

What evidence do you have that Stenson won the tournament because he didn't use a driver off the tee?

 

Just because Stenson won the tournament without a driver in his bag, it does not follow that he won the tournament due to not using a driver. You're confusing correlation with causation.

[Stuart_G]

What evidence do you have that Stenson won the tournament because he didn't use a driver off the tee?

 

Just because Stenson won the tournament without a driver in his bag, it does not follow that he won the tournament due to not using a driver. You're confusing correlation with causation.

 

No confusion on my part. I didn't say (or even imply) he won because he didn't put the driver in his bag, I implied he won despite the fact that he didn't put a driver in his bag.

 

And the evidence is his choice of clubs to put into the bag. You don't really think he made the choice w/o understanding the impact it would have on his game and ability to play the course? Or that he made a choice that he thought would not give him the best opportunity to win?

 

Stenson knows his game and his capabilities with all the various clubs he could have put into the bag. And he made the choice based on that understanding. The results show that those choices didn't hurt their game or level of success in any way. Same could be said for Ollie and his choice of clubs off the tee.

[rawdog]

Actually the point is Stenson's performance off the tee, not that he won a tournament.

 

You're trying to promote your position that everyone is unique and you're not addressing driving performance.

 

No, yes, and not correct.

 

What evidence do you have that Stenson won the tournament because he didn't use a driver off the tee?

 

Just because Stenson won the tournament without a driver in his bag, it does not follow that he won the tournament due to not using a driver. You're confusing correlation with causation.

 

Need to find strokes gained by category for this particular tournament, but I can't find a good source. If anyone has a good one, let me know, please.

[pinestreetgolf]

Stenson knows his game and his capabilities with all the various clubs he could have put into the bag. And he made the choice based on that understanding. The results show that those choices didn't hurt their game or level of success in any way. Same could be said for Ollie and his choice of clubs off the tee.

 

That's a fallacy, though. Its circular. It could have hurt or helped. We have no idea. Maybe he could have won by 5 more strokes with a driver in the bag. Maybe he loses by 5 instead. We don't know.

 

Its the Patriots example. Bellicheck knows what he is doing and he went down 28-3 and won, right? So, by your logic, going down 28-3 isn't bad?

 

Of course it is. Just like not playing a driver is most likely wrong, falling down 28-3 is most likely wrong regardless of who it was and / or what the end result was. We know falling down 28-3 is bad because most teams who fall down 28-3 don't win. We know not playing a driver is bad because most people score worse when they hit it shorter. That doesn't mean a fantastic player can't win without a driver, just like a fantastic team can win down 28-3. But we can't extrapolate from it that its a good thing, or even a neutral thing.