3W vs Driver off the tee

[JeffreySpicoli]

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.

 

You've offered no evidence that the lack of a driver in his bag caused him to win this tournament nor have you offered any evidence that his performance off the tee caused him to win this tournament. So, yes, you've clearly confused correlation with causation.

[pinestreetgolf]

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.

 

You've offered no evidence that the lack of a driver in his bag caused him to win this tournament nor have you offered any evidence that his performance off the tee caused him to win this tournament. So, yes, you've clearly confused correlation with causation.

 

Henrick Stenson can't make a mistake in terms of what clubs go in his bag. Its impossible.

[zyphir77]

I've been hitting 3w or 5w off the tee almost exclusively lately. I get about 260 out of the 3w and 240 out of the 5w so unless I were to push myself back to 6500+ yards I really don't have to put the driver in play much at all unless I want to have a go at a par5 in 2, or a short par 4. I don't have any confidence in my driver anymore. I pull it out at least a hand full of times a round and I can usually pinpoint where I used driver by the double bogies (or triples :/ ) that appear on my score card. I still intend to get my driver straightened out but with the 3w hitting my target 9 out of 10 times.... it's hard to not take it off the tee 90% of the time.

[pinestreetgolf]

I've been hitting 3w or 5w off the tee almost exclusively lately. I get about 260 out of the 3w and 240 out of the 5w so unless I were to push myself back to 6500+ yards I really don't have to put the driver in play much at all unless I want to have a go at a par5 in 2, or a short par 4. I don't have any confidence in my driver anymore. I pull it out at least a hand full of times a round and I can usually pinpoint where I used driver by the double bogies (or triples :/ ) that appear on my score card. I still intend to get my driver straightened out but with the 3w hitting my target 9 out of 10 times.... it's hard to not take it off the tee 90% of the time.

 

So, you:

 

1. Are an 11 handicap

2. Hit the ball 260 with a 3 wood

3. Hit your target (260 yards away) with 3 wood 90% of the time

 

Yeah, OK. An 11 cap 90% to hit target from 260?!? I wouldn't hit driver either.

[zyphir77]

I've been hitting 3w or 5w off the tee almost exclusively lately. I get about 260 out of the 3w and 240 out of the 5w so unless I were to push myself back to 6500+ yards I really don't have to put the driver in play much at all unless I want to have a go at a par5 in 2, or a short par 4. I don't have any confidence in my driver anymore. I pull it out at least a hand full of times a round and I can usually pinpoint where I used driver by the double bogies (or triples :/ ) that appear on my score card. I still intend to get my driver straightened out but with the 3w hitting my target 9 out of 10 times.... it's hard to not take it off the tee 90% of the time.

 

So, you:

 

1. Are an 11 handicap

2. Hit the ball 260 with a 3 wood

3. Hit your target (260 yards away) with 3 wood 90% of the time

 

Yeah, OK. An 11 cap 90% to hit target from 260?!? I wouldn't hit driver either.

 

I'm not trying to blow smoke here. I simply mean the ball stays on my target line with my 3w the vast majority of the time. I still miss fairways, I miss a hell of a lot of greens, and I make a lot of short game mistakes. Wasn't trying to claim I'm good at golf. But yea, thats why I stick w/ 3w. It's one of the few strengths of my game right now.

[pinestreetgolf]

I've been hitting 3w or 5w off the tee almost exclusively lately. I get about 260 out of the 3w and 240 out of the 5w so unless I were to push myself back to 6500+ yards I really don't have to put the driver in play much at all unless I want to have a go at a par5 in 2, or a short par 4. I don't have any confidence in my driver anymore. I pull it out at least a hand full of times a round and I can usually pinpoint where I used driver by the double bogies (or triples :/ ) that appear on my score card. I still intend to get my driver straightened out but with the 3w hitting my target 9 out of 10 times.... it's hard to not take it off the tee 90% of the time.

 

So, you:

 

1. Are an 11 handicap

2. Hit the ball 260 with a 3 wood

3. Hit your target (260 yards away) with 3 wood 90% of the time

 

Yeah, OK. An 11 cap 90% to hit target from 260?!? I wouldn't hit driver either.

 

I'm not trying to blow smoke here. I simply mean the ball stays on my target line with my 3w the vast majority of the time. I still miss fairways, I miss a hell of a lot of greens, and I make a lot of short game mistakes. Wasn't trying to claim I'm good at golf. But yea, thats why I stick w/ 3w. It's one of the few strengths of my game right now.

 

I don't think you are blowing smoke (did you read the thread?) you are engaging in boolean thinking. You ball doesn't stay on its target line the "Vast majority of the time" with your 3w. Its likely less than half the time. Its just gotten the "accuracy" moniker because that is how the human mind works. The driver costs you strokes. The 3 wood is accurate. This wedge is "money". That hybrid is a "hook machine". Those labels are almost always false. There is no way you are that accurate at that distance as an 11. Your 3w is slightly less accurate than your driver and slightly shorter. No more, no less.

[zyphir77]

I failed math :)

[JeffreySpicoli]

I failed math.

 

Fixed that so you don't fail English, too.

[BiggErn]

I don't feel like I hit my driver or fairway wood better than the other. I'll go with driver unless I feel it'll be too much club. If I'm worried about keeping it in play on a tight hole and not feeling confident I'll go with an iron or maybe hybrid. I actually ditched my 3 wood and carry an 18* 5 wood that I was hitting close to the same distance as my 3 wood and added a wedge.

[shaneotool]

I posted earlier in this thread about not using a driver because I can't keep it in play. I have continued to work on it at the driving range and used driver in a round this weekend. My bag went driver to 4 iron. I was able to keep it in the fairway for the most part and tied my best ever score of 88. Admittedly, that's not very good, but I'm a hack.

 

It sure was nice having a bunch of sub 100 yard approach shots into par 4's.

 

[JeffreySpicoli]

I posted earlier in this thread about not using a driver because I can't keep it in play. I have continued to work on it at the driving range and used driver in a round this weekend. My bag went driver to 4 iron. I was able to keep it in the fairway for the most part and tied my best ever score of 88. Admittedly, that's not very good, but I'm a hack.

 

It sure was nice having a bunch of sub 100 yard approach shots into par 4's.

 

Congrats and nice work!

[Stuart_G]

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.

 

No actually it's not a fallacy, nor is it circular in any way. And saying it could have hurt is quite a stretch - you can't do any better then winning (and how many strokes you win by doesn't change the size of the paycheck). He also matched or broke the 72 hole scoring record for the tournament.

 

Are all the pro's choices fool proof? of course not as it's still a statistical approach - but it is one based on a lot of factual data (and statistics) that is specific to the individual - so it's significantly more accurate (or has a higher probability of success) then only using statistics from a wide range of individuals and depending on the trends of those much more general statistics.

 

And you can't assume Stenson didn't know just because you don't know. If you want to argue that some amateurs may not know enough about their game and abilities to make accurate decisions - I don't disagree that's true for many cases (but not all). But that same argument has little merit for most of the pros. In fact, many hire their own statisticians just so they can get a better understanding of their game. That same (individual specific) data that can be useful for determining where to spend practice time can be just as useful and important in making club selections or club choices for the bag.

 

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.

 

I couldn't find them either. The tournament specific stats for driving that I found only showed distance and accuracy, not strokes-gained.

[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.

 

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.

 

If one wants to claim that Stenson's success is due to his use of 3W rather than driver, then Strokes Gained for the season is more relevant than just one tournament. And his Strokes Gained for the season doesn't point to driving performance as the key to his success.

[pinestreetgolf]

 

No actually it's not a fallacy, nor is it circular in any way. And saying it could have hurt is quite a stretch - you can't do any better then winning (and how many strokes you win by doesn't change the size of the paycheck). He also matched or broke the 72 hole scoring record for the tournament.

 

Are all the pro's choices fool proof? of course not as it's still a statistical approach - but it is one based on a lot of factual data (and statistics) that is specific to the individual - so it's significantly more accurate (or has a higher probability of success) then only using statistics from a wide range of individuals and depending on the trends of those much more general statistics.

 

And you can't assume Stenson didn't know just because you don't know. If you want to argue that some amateurs may not know enough about their game and abilities to make accurate decisions - I don't disagree that's true for many cases (but not all). But that same argument has little merit for most of the pros. In fact, many hire their own statisticians just so they can get a better understanding of their game. That same (individual specific) data that can be useful for determining where to spend practice time can be just as useful and important in making club selections or club choices for the bag.

 

I'm confused now Stuart. What, exactly, are you saying players can conclude from Stenson's win without a driver in the bag?

 

1. You've said not having a driver didn't cause his win.

2. You've said he might have his stats, but you don't know.

3. You've said that he couldn't do better than he did (which isn't true, he could have shot a lower score than he did and won by more).

 

I don't understand what larger truth we can extrapolate from this event's results in your eyes.

[Stuart_G]

I'm confused now Stuart. What, exactly, are you saying players can conclude from Stenson's win without a driver in the bag?

 

1. You've said not having a driver didn't cause his win.

2. You've said he might have his stats, but you don't know.

3. You've said that he couldn't do better than he did (which isn't true, he could have shot a lower score than he did and won by more).

 

 

I can't say for sure but I suspect your confusion is due to jumping to the wrong conclusions about what I was saying. So lets see if we can clear it up.

 

1. I didn't say or imply anything about what caused him to win. I only said he didn't need to use a driver to win.

2. I might not know all the details that lead to the decision, but it's unarguable that he made the decision based on his own evaluation and judgement of his own game and capabilities with the various club selection options and what he thought he needed to win.

3. your definition of better and mine are different. You can't get any better result then a win. The goal is to play better then every other player in the field and Stenson is one of the pros who do watch the leaderboard so decisions during a round are made for that purpose. For those types of players, the performance of others in the field will influence the decisions made during the course of play.

 

I don't understand what larger truth we can extrapolate from this event's results in your eyes.

 

Only what I said in the post that started this part of the thread.

 

Everyone has to find what works best for them.

 

If you are reading anything more into it than that, you'll have to search deeper for the source - it's not coming from me.

[Juice1121]

If we are taking golfing cues from one of the most premier ball strikers with his 3 wood in the game, then you can just call me crazy. Nobody should be taking cues from Stenson and his Diablo Octane 3 wood that he's had in the bag for a close to a decade. He is the exception, not the rule.

 

Not to mention that it is 12.5 degrees and is basically a mini driver. He is not sacrificing 40 or 50 yards, it's more like 10-15. There is literally nothing that the average golfer can draw from Stenson winning with no driver in his bag other than it is possible for someone to play well without one.

 

99% of golfers should be looking to lower their score by getting the ball as close to the hole as possible with every shot. All of those 1%ers seem to be on WRX.

[JeffreySpicoli]

I'm confused now Stuart. What, exactly, are you saying players can conclude from Stenson's win without a driver in the bag?

 

1. You've said not having a driver didn't cause his win.

2. You've said he might have his stats, but you don't know.

3. You've said that he couldn't do better than he did (which isn't true, he could have shot a lower score than he did and won by more).

 

 

I can't say for sure but I suspect your confusion is due to jumping to the wrong conclusions about what I was saying. So lets see if we can clear it up.

 

1. I didn't say or imply anything about what caused him to win. I only said he didn't need to use a driver to win.

2. I might not know all the details that lead to the decision, but it's unarguable that he made the decision based on his own evaluation and judgement of his own game and capabilities with the various club selection options and what he thought he needed to win.

3. your definition of better and mine are different. You can't get any better result then a win. The goal is to play better then every other player in the field and Stenson is one of the pros who do watch the leaderboard so decisions during a round are made for that purpose. For those types of players, the performance of others in the field will influence the decisions made during the course of play.

 

I don't understand what larger truth we can extrapolate from this event's results in your eyes.

 

Only what I said in the post that started this part of the thread.

 

Everyone has to find what works best for them.

 

If you are reading anything more into it than that, you'll have to search deeper for the source - it's not coming from me.

 

You've positioned your "Everyone has to find what works best for them" as a negation of what we can learn from Strokes Gained: Off the Tee. So there's more to it than your statement as you're using it to argue against the fact that Strokes Gained tells us that the majority of players--both professional and amateur--are better off hitting driver rather than 3W off the tee.

 

While "Everyone has to find what works best for them" is certainly true, we know that if everyone did this then the vast majority would be using driver as their most frequent club off the tee or they'd be working to improve their use of a driver.

[Stuart_G]

You've positioned your "Everyone has to find what works best for them" as a negation of what we can learn from Strokes Gained: Off the Tee.

 

I never applied or positioned it as a negation - that was an assumption made by you.

 

I've always said that collecting accurate and detailed statistics (whether strokes gained or some other accurate method) for one's own game can be very beneficial to making decisions on the course (or in the bag or wrt to practice time). The only contention I've ever really had is that the decisions should be made on ones unique and individual statistics, not the generalized averages of a much larger sample population.

 

And maybe how 'vast' the majority really is. I've not seen anyone post any real data on the standard deviations of the statistics Broodie collected. If you've seen it, feel free to share it to support that statement.

[Stuart_G]

Not to mention that it is 12.5 degrees and is basically a mini driver. He is not sacrificing 40 or 50 yards, it's more like 10-15. There is literally nothing that the average golfer can draw from Stenson winning with no driver in his bag other than it is possible for someone to play well without one.

 

Actually that wasn't my point at all (to automatically do what stension does just because he does it) - but now that you mention it - for the majority of ams 10-15 (not 40-50) is much more realistic loss when going from driver to 3wd. But that difference in distance is only one part of the decision, is not a reason by itself to choose either club.

[JeffreySpicoli]

You've positioned your "Everyone has to find what works best for them" as a negation of what we can learn from Strokes Gained: Off the Tee.

 

I never applied or positioned it as a negation - that was an assumption made by you.

 

I've always said that collecting accurate and detailed statistics (whether strokes gained or some other accurate method) for one's own game can be very beneficial to making decisions on the course (or in the bag or wrt to practice time). The only contention I've ever really had is that the decisions should be made on ones unique and individual statistics, not the generalized averages of a much larger sample population.

 

And maybe how 'vast' the majority really is. I've not seen anyone post any real data on the standard deviations of the statistics Broodie collected. If you've seen it, feel free to share it to support that statement.

 

Again you've put uniqueness vs statistics in opposition.

 

The point of referencing Strokes Gained is that it demonstrates the importance of getting as close to the hole as possible while avoiding hazards. Given this, one shouldn't give up on the driver without a clear reason for doing so. This doesn't mean one shouldn't get their own statistics. It simply means that naively giving up on the driver given GIR, for example, is self-defeating.

[cardoustie]

I will hit driver all day long vs 3 wood off the tee. So much margin for error .. for me anyways. Plus, I can hit a driver WAY higher when needed for dog legs

[Matt J]

I've gone back and forth on pushing the ball closer vs. laying up to certain yardages.

 

I open every range session hitting my 54 to various short targets. Some days plane and face are 'on' and others not so much. When I get that 75 yard shot working I can score and will hit driver all day, but when the angles are off I'll hit to 120 and hit my PW into as many greens as possible often just attempted to hit the center of the green.

[Juice1121]

Not to mention that it is 12.5 degrees and is basically a mini driver. He is not sacrificing 40 or 50 yards, it's more like 10-15. There is literally nothing that the average golfer can draw from Stenson winning with no driver in his bag other than it is possible for someone to play well without one.

 

Actually that wasn't my point at all (to automatically do what stension does just because he does it) - but now that you mention it - for the majority of ams 10-15 (not 40-50) is much more realistic loss when going from driver to 3wd. But that difference in distance is only one part of the decision, is not a reason by itself to choose either club.

 

I never said that was a point you made. But, that is a point that has been made by others in the thread.

 

My point was, there is no reason to bring up Stenson at all. His results do not apply to anyone on this forum.

 

There is a mountain of data that suggests hitting driver off the tee will lower the scores of 99% of average golfers. There is no data set suggesting the opposite. So until further notice I will be hitting driver off every tee that it is reasonable to do so.

[Stuart_G]

Again you've put uniqueness vs statistics in opposition.

 

No, it's not in opposition at all. Statistics only say what, on average for the sampled population tends to be better. They don't tell us what is better for any one specific individual. They never pretend to.

 

Given this, one shouldn't give up on the driver without a clear reason for doing so. The point of referencing Strokes Gained is that it demonstrates the importance of getting as close to the hole as possible while avoiding hazards.

 

Technically, it's demonstrating that approach accuracy and proximity to the hole is generally more important then driver accuracy (fairways hit). A subtle difference but not quite the same thing as distance. Commonly there is a correlation between the two, but not always.

 

 

This doesn't mean one shouldn't get their own statistics. It simply means that naively giving up on the driver given GIR, for example, is self-defeating.

 

That's fine. I certainly agree that no decision should be made blindly. Just don't make the reverse assumption that just because someone did give up the use of the driver, that it means they are naive.

 

 

 

There is a mountain of data that suggests hitting driver off the tee will lower the scores of 99% of average golfers. There is no data set suggesting the opposite. So until further notice I will be hitting driver off every tee that it is reasonable to do so.

 

I've seen data that says on average it would be better but nothing to suggest that it's even close to 99%. If you have a link to support that, feel free to share it.

 

You should realize that you are combining an unconditional statement with a conditional one. Do you know where or even if the statistical data defines when it's 'reasonable' or not? I certainly agree a decision on what's reasonable is something everyone should make. But do you really know if you are truly following the guidelines of the statistics? Does your evaluation of what's reasonable or not match the statistical results?

[ThinkingPlus]

Not to mention that it is 12.5 degrees and is basically a mini driver. He is not sacrificing 40 or 50 yards, it's more like 10-15. There is literally nothing that the average golfer can draw from Stenson winning with no driver in his bag other than it is possible for someone to play well without one.

 

Actually that wasn't my point at all (to automatically do what stension does just because he does it) - but now that you mention it - for the majority of ams 10-15 (not 40-50) is much more realistic loss when going from driver to 3wd. But that difference in distance is only one part of the decision, is not a reason by itself to choose either club.

 

I never said that was a point you made. But, that is a point that has been made by others in the thread.

 

My point was, there is no reason to bring up Stenson at all. His results do not apply to anyone on this forum.

 

There is a mountain of data that suggests hitting driver off the tee will lower the scores of 99% of average golfers. There is no data set suggesting the opposite. So until further notice I will be hitting driver off every tee that it is reasonable to do so.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post the "mountains of data" tells very little about course conditions or playing ability of the golfers who provided the data (specifically talking amateurs here). The impact of rough severity, hazards, and golfer's skill handling the rough are the most important factors to consider when choosing what club to hit off the tee.

[jonn443]

If you can hit your 3 wood 300yds like Henrick.. by all means. ?

[jtcooky]

I've played some of the best rounds of my life just using 3 wood off the tee all day. Experimenting with a tour spoon and a slightly longer than average 3 wood shaft. We'll see what happens.

[Juice1121]

There is a mountain of data that suggests hitting driver off the tee will lower the scores of 99% of average golfers. There is no data set suggesting the opposite. So until further notice I will be hitting driver off every tee that it is reasonable to do so.

 

I've seen data that says on average it would be better but nothing to suggest that it's even close to 99%. If you have a link to support that, feel free to share it.

 

You should realize that you are combining an unconditional statement with a conditional one. Do you know where or even if the statistical data defines when it's 'reasonable' or not? I certainly agree a decision on what's reasonable is something everyone should make. But do you really know if you are truly following the guidelines of the statistics? Does your evaluation of what's reasonable or not match the statistical results?

 

 

 

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post the "mountains of data" tells very little about course conditions or playing ability of the golfers who provided the data (specifically talking amateurs here). The impact of rough severity, hazards, and golfer's skill handling the rough are the most important factors to consider when choosing what club to hit off the tee.

 

 

I understand your points about "it depends". But you're missing the forest for the trees. Maybe it's not 99% and maybe the data isn't perfect, but it is actually good research. Where is all the data that shows laying up lowers scores? All anybody has offered is anecdotes and corner cases.

 

 

The data shows that hitting the ball closer to the hole makes your next shot easier. I'm not sure how anyone would possibly try to argue that. The closer I am the closer my next shot will be. It's up to the individual golfer to determine when the trouble or the risk is worth staying with the driver.

 

If someone wants to pretend or believe they're the exception to the rule, by all means go for it. I will be at the teebox with my driver.

[ThinkingPlus]

There is a mountain of data that suggests hitting driver off the tee will lower the scores of 99% of average golfers. There is no data set suggesting the opposite. So until further notice I will be hitting driver off every tee that it is reasonable to do so.

 

I've seen data that says on average it would be better but nothing to suggest that it's even close to 99%. If you have a link to support that, feel free to share it.

 

You should realize that you are combining an unconditional statement with a conditional one. Do you know where or even if the statistical data defines when it's 'reasonable' or not? I certainly agree a decision on what's reasonable is something everyone should make. But do you really know if you are truly following the guidelines of the statistics? Does your evaluation of what's reasonable or not match the statistical results?

 

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post the "mountains of data" tells very little about course conditions or playing ability of the golfers who provided the data (specifically talking amateurs here). The impact of rough severity, hazards, and golfer's skill handling the rough are the most important factors to consider when choosing what club to hit off the tee.

 

 

I understand your points about "it depends". But you're missing the forest for the trees. Maybe it's not 99% and maybe the data isn't perfect, but it is actually good research. Where is all the data that shows laying up lowers scores? All anybody has offered is anecdotes and corner cases.

 

 

The data shows that hitting the ball closer to the hole makes your next shot easier. I'm not sure how anyone would possibly try to argue that. The closer I am the closer my next shot will be. It's up to the individual golfer to determine when the trouble or the risk is worth staying with the driver.

 

If someone wants to pretend or believe they're the exception to the rule, by all means go for it. I will be at the teebox with my driver.

 

On an average course played by most amateurs assuming you have average skills playing from the rough your approach is correct.

[Stuart_G]

I understand your points about "it depends". But you're missing the forest for the trees. Maybe it's not 99% and maybe the data isn't perfect, but it is actually good research. Where is all the data that shows laying up lowers scores? All anybody has offered is anecdotes and corner cases.

 

 

The data shows that hitting the ball closer to the hole makes your next shot easier. I'm not sure how anyone would possibly try to argue that. The closer I am the closer my next shot will be. It's up to the individual golfer to determine when the trouble or the risk is worth staying with the driver.

 

If someone wants to pretend or believe they're the exception to the rule, by all means go for it. I will be at the teebox with my driver.

 

Since you didn't fully answer my questions, I can't be sure, but so far it seems you might be not looking at the trees carefully enough.

 

There certainly may be some complete idiots out there - but almost no one chooses a shorter club because they don't want to be longer (forced layups and keeping from going through a dog-leg not withstanding). They take the exact same approach you do. Specifically:

 

I will be hitting driver off every tee that it is reasonable to do so.

 

What Broodie's research has concluded is that "most" are too conservative in making that determination on when it is reasonable or when it is not (we can put aside the question for the moment of whether that "most" means 51%, 99% or somewhere in between). And I've never disputed the validity of that research and the results - only some peoples interpretation of how widely it might apply or the use of broad generalizations to make the determination on whether someone is going against the principles of the data or not. (e.g. closer to the hole is better most of the time is not the same as closer to the hole is better all the time).

 

I dont' doubt you've developed your own sense of when it might seem worth it to you vs when it doesn't. However, unless you look more closely (then you've let on so far) on what that criteria might be or specific data you use for to make the determination whether it's reasonable or not to use your driver, you might agree in theory but you can't really say where you stand (in practice) with respect to the studies recommendations.