3W vs Driver off the tee

[yebritas]

I like to use the 3 wood for narrow holes and driver for wide ones and par 5's... I rather be 30yds further from the green but on the fairway

[Juice1121]

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.

 

Stuart, If you want to discuss what is reasonable we can, but that conversation is going nowhere.

 

I have used arccos and kept detailed stats over the past year for my performance off the tee I am aware of my numbers, yardages, and tendencies. It is not a "sense" of what is reasonable. I know if the forced carry is 260 yards, I will most likely not make it. I know if there is a dogleg at 230 yards, then driver will be too much club. I know if the fairway pinches and has bunkers at 245 yards then the driver will most likely put me in trouble. I know these things from keeping stats for my last 50 rounds.

 

What I know from broadie, is that if there is just fairway and rough, then hit the club that will put me closer to the hole.

 

It is pretty clear what reasonable means to me, you have to determine what that means for you. The average golfer has to take their own data.

 

To answer your questions...

 

Do you know where or even if the statistical data defines when it's 'reasonable' or not? How can data determine what is reasonable? What is reasonable is completely player dependent. you're missing the point again.

 

But do you really know if you are truly following the guidelines of the statistics? yes I do. I know what the guidelines are and I know how my tendencies fall into them.

 

Does your evaluation of what's reasonable or not match the statistical results? Broadie throws out the times that driver will put you in trouble ie forced carries, hazards at yardages etc. So, the statistics are solely based on when it is reasonable to hit driver.

 

Referencing instances where drivers do not apply have nothing to do with the statistics that Broadie has drawn his conclusions from.

 

 

The point is that if you do not have data to suggest he is wrong for your specific case, then why not go with the mountain of data that suggests hitting your driver off the tee will lower your score. If you play 30 rounds and find the opposite is the case, then by all means switch to hitting your 3 wood. I'm not saying anybody is wrong, I am just saying show me the data that says your 3 wood is gaining you more strokes than your driver off the tee for an extended sample size.

[North Butte]

If someone is not going to be able to (almost always) make it over a forced carry or is going to be in a fairway bunker or hitting into god knows what through the bend in a dogleg, that's certainly not included in Broadie's general advice to hit driver more. As Shayan1121 says, the Broadie advice is not to lay back with 3-wood just to avoid sometimes going in the rough.

 

Broadie specifically says if it's a penalty stroke or chip-out you need to play away from it. On a lot of courses nowadays "playing away from" means laying up short of because they are so darned narrow. When the distance from OB left to water right is only 40 yards it's hard to "play away from" both!

[Golf4lifer]

Most of the courses I play are narrow and have trouble both left and right, so no matter if you hit a driver, 3 wood, or driving iron off the tee you have to be accurate. I chose which club to use off the tee by the yardage I am going to have left to the pin. If the driver is going to put me at an awkward distance in, then I use the 3 wood and on down. The last thing on my mind is the trouble to the left or right. If I happen to hit it into trouble, then I take my medicine and move on.

 

We are way overthinking this 3 wood vs. driver off the tee thing. Just my opinion.

[cMgolfer181]

Bomb and gouge!

[North Butte]

Bomb and gouge!

 

Or even better, bomb and hit SW from the middle of the fairway!

 

Unfortunately I can't bomb it worth a darn but I still have to gouge. Pretty sure Broadie's stats would indicate I'm best taking two weeks off and then quitting.

[dog flog]

Bomb and gouge!

 

Or even better, bomb and hit SW from the middle of the fairway!

 

Unfortunately I can't bomb it worth a darn but I still have to gouge. Pretty sure Broadie's stats would indicate I'm best taking two weeks off and then quitting.

First in with Stewart Maiden!

[rawdog]

Most of the courses I play are narrow and have trouble both left and right, so no matter if you hit a driver, 3 wood, or driving iron off the tee you have to be accurate. I chose which club to use off the tee by the yardage I am going to have left to the pin. If the driver is going to put me at an awkward distance in, then I use the 3 wood and on down. The last thing on my mind is the trouble to the left or right. If I happen to hit it into trouble, then I take my medicine and move on.

 

We are way overthinking this 3 wood vs. driver off the tee thing. Just my opinion.

 

Embrace the "awkward" distance in until it isn't awkward anymore. You'll score better.

[Golf4lifer]

Most of the courses I play are narrow and have trouble both left and right, so no matter if you hit a driver, 3 wood, or driving iron off the tee you have to be accurate. I chose which club to use off the tee by the yardage I am going to have left to the pin. If the driver is going to put me at an awkward distance in, then I use the 3 wood and on down. The last thing on my mind is the trouble to the left or right. If I happen to hit it into trouble, then I take my medicine and move on.

 

We are way overthinking this 3 wood vs. driver off the tee thing. Just my opinion.

 

Embrace the "awkward" distance in until it isn't awkward anymore. You'll score better.

 

I am doing just that so far it's hit or miss, but I've hit some pretty half wedge shoots!

[rawdog]

Most of the courses I play are narrow and have trouble both left and right, so no matter if you hit a driver, 3 wood, or driving iron off the tee you have to be accurate. I chose which club to use off the tee by the yardage I am going to have left to the pin. If the driver is going to put me at an awkward distance in, then I use the 3 wood and on down. The last thing on my mind is the trouble to the left or right. If I happen to hit it into trouble, then I take my medicine and move on.

 

We are way overthinking this 3 wood vs. driver off the tee thing. Just my opinion.

 

Embrace the "awkward" distance in until it isn't awkward anymore. You'll score better.

 

I am doing just that so far it's hit or miss, but I've hit some pretty half wedge shoots!

 

Awesome! This year I started using "draw" and "fade" swings with my half wedges to change trajectories and distances. You can't really shape a wedge but I do see a difference in how the ball reacts on impact with the green.

 

Once you get the confidence up, it feels like you're just tossing the ball onto the green.

 

Okay, back to the original discussion...

:)

[hybrid25]

Most of the courses I play are narrow and have trouble both left and right.... The last thing on my mind is the trouble to the left or right. If I happen to hit it into trouble, then I take my medicine and move on.

It is amazing how the mind works, if you concentrate too much on the trouble left or right, often times you hit right into it. The best thing to do is choose the proper club for the hole and keep the positive thoughts in your mind. Stop worrying about hitting into trouble, if you do most likely that's where you'll end up.

[Golf4lifer]

Most of the courses I play are narrow and have trouble both left and right.... The last thing on my mind is the trouble to the left or right. If I happen to hit it into trouble, then I take my medicine and move on.

It is amazing how the mind works, if you concentrate too much on the trouble left or right, often times you hit right into it. The best thing to do is choose the proper club for the hole and keep the positive thoughts in your mind. Stop worrying about hitting into trouble, if you do most likely that's where you'll end up.

 

I agree 100%! As long as I focus on my target and not the trouble I do well. I may miss my target, by a few yards but in most cases it's playable. This is with any club off the tee.

[Stuart_G]

Stuart, If you want to discuss what is reasonable we can, but that conversation is going nowhere.

 

The question weren't to actually start that particular discussion - although it might be interesting to do so. Rather the point was that the most important conclusions from the study was really that we should be questioning our own sense of what is reasonable and what is not.

 

If you've kept stats on your game to support your decisions - that's great and really is the main point I'm trying to make that everyone should be doing that and basing their decisions on that data and not just look at Boadie's data in isolation.

 

 

What I know from broadie, is that if there is just fairway and rough, then hit the club that will put me closer to the hole.

 

Unfortunately, golf is rarely that simple so for most, that's too much of an oversimplification to be a useful rule. As you've mentioned, other things influence the decision, lateral water hazard, fairway bunkers, trees, etc... Those are the concerns that most people have that cause them to hit less then driver. If anyone has a game and a course where they can actually take such a simplistic approach - all the power to them.

 

 

Do you know where or even if the statistical data defines when it's 'reasonable' or not? How can data determine what is reasonable? What is reasonable is completely player dependent.

 

This is more of a side-bar but while I can't say how well it's tried to do it, but it's certainly possible that it could. The statistical gain from the added distance could be compared to the statistical loss for those times that the tee shot doesn't work out for the various possible results. That type of statistical comparison and analysis is actually what any statistical study MUST do to come to any valid conclusions.

 

 

Broadie throws out the times that driver will put you in trouble ie forced carries, hazards at yardages etc. So, the statistics are solely based on when it is reasonable to hit driver.

 

I'd be really surprised (and disappointed) if such judgment of "reasonable" isn't somehow objectively defined by Broodie (whether published or not). There is always some risk in any shot and without any object definition of when that risk becomes reasonable or not, then the conclusions are really completely useless.

 

That's what every golfer has to do to (and has been doing for as long as the game has been played) each person has to ask themselves, for any given situation, is at what point does the risk outweigh the gain and whether or not we are being too conservative or not? e.g. If I find (through my own statistics) that with my driver, 1 in 5 shots go into the woods and when it does it, on average costs me 1 full stroke. Is that enough of a potential for adding to the score to validate my dropping down to a 3wd (which might be 1 in 20 into the woods)? if not 1 in 5, what about 1 in 10? How many good shots does it take to make up for each bad one? We might not think of it that way, but that's what everyone really does once they start to learn course managment.

 

 

So without any helpful input from Broodie on answering that specific type of question, all I (or anyone else) can do, is continue to keep making our own best judgement about what the best club to use from the tee should be. Well, obviously and start to collect a bit more data about our own game we might use to help us with that judgement. And there is little basis for providing critisism for that decsion anyone else might make (whether it happens to be the driver or the 3wd or something else).

[Juice1121]

1) I think that would be an interesting discussion, but maybe not in this thread as I think it would derail it from the topic

 

2) I think most average golfers over complicate it. I have 5 holes on my home course that require a risk reward type assessment. 4 are par 3's and the rest are holes with little to no trouble on them besides rough and OB that is miles away. That means 50% of holes set up to be no brainier driver off the tee holes. I would be surprised if most average public courses aren't set up in a similar fashion.

 

3) What broadie is talking about is that if hitting a driver will put you in trouble, IE forced carry, bunkers at a certain yardage, dog legs, then that is not applicable to his data. He is literally talking about only instances where it is reasonable to hit driver. We can go back and forth all day about the nuances of deciding what is reasonable and what isn't, but I think if we were on the same course looking at the same holes and having a discussion, we would come to a very similar conclusions about when its safe to hit driver.

 

4) I agree with you in a nutshell. We need to come to our own conclusions for when to lay up, when to hit driver, and what is a reasonable risk. However, the point is that most people who pick up a golf club, and the majority of people on this forum do not keep those statistics. So they are basing their judgement off of misguided feelings that are ultimately hurting their score.

 

The whole point I am trying to make is that why wouldn't a player go off the mountain of data that suggests hitting drier on the majority of tee shots is the statistically better play? At least start there until you take enough data to suggest otherwise. If you continue to believe that your 3 wood is the better option off most tees you're most likely leaving strokes out on the course. That is what the data suggests. Again, there is no statistical evidence to suggest the that laying up with a fairway lowers golfers scores. There is evidence that hitting driver from more tee shots will lower average golfers scores.

 

As a side note, I am fairly sure Broadie does somewhat define what is reasonable in a sense. I can't recall exactly what he came up with however.

[lazyjc4]

If the hole forces me to hit a cut, I hit driver. A draw, 3-wood. If neither, I'll most likely hit driver, unless there's really no reason to, or it puts me in no-man's land (30-50 yards out). If there are hazards that are reachable by the longer clubs, I have no problem hitting 5 wood or 3 iron off the tee, as well.

[JeffreySpicoli]

Fawcett is very clear that one shouldn't bomb away with driver all the time. He's even built a decision tree to help with this. You'll learn about it in his NCAA driving video on YouTube.

 

Again, here are his rules of thumb on tee shots . . .

 

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-tress-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.

 

What's both amusing and perverse in this thread are attempts to correct PSG that then leap to an assumption that discrediting PSG allows one to ignore Broadie, Fawcett, and analytics in general.

 

So rather than continuing to pick at PSG, might someone explain what's wrong with Broadie and Fawcett and a driver first approach? ("Analytics doesn't address specifics" isn't useful. Fawcett clearly allows for specifics.)

 

As far as the risk/reward equation, we discussed this and Fawcett shouldn't be ignored.

[Stuart_G]

Fawcett is very clear that one shouldn't bomb away with driver all the time. He's even built a decision tree to help with this. You'll learn about it in his NCAA driving video on YouTube.

 

Again, here are his rules of thumb on tee shots . . .

 

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-tress-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.

 

What's both amusing and perverse in this thread are attempts to correct PSG that then leap to an assumption that discrediting PSG allows one to ignore Broadie, Fawcett, and analytics in general.

 

So rather than continuing to pick at PSG, might someone explain what's wrong with Broadie and Fawcett and a driver first approach? ("Analytics doesn't address specifics" isn't useful. Fawcett clearly allows for specifics.)

 

As far as the risk/reward equation, we discussed this and Fawcett shouldn't be ignored.

 

Sounds like a good starting point - but do you know if those yardages for #2 and #3 specific to certain type of player - or does he suggest they are valid for all levels of play?

[deadsolid...shank]

1) I think that would be an interesting discussion, but maybe not in this thread as I think it would derail it from the topic

 

2) I think most average golfers over complicate it. I have 5 holes on my home course that require a risk reward type assessment. 4 are par 3's and the rest are holes with little to no trouble on them besides rough and OB that is miles away. That means 50% of holes set up to be no brainier driver off the tee holes. I would be surprised if most average public courses aren't set up in a similar fashion.

 

3) What broadie is talking about is that if hitting a driver will put you in trouble, IE forced carry, bunkers at a certain yardage, dog legs, then that is not applicable to his data. He is literally talking about only instances where it is reasonable to hit driver. We can go back and forth all day about the nuances of deciding what is reasonable and what isn't, but I think if we were on the same course looking at the same holes and having a discussion, we would come to a very similar conclusions about when its safe to hit driver.

 

4) I agree with you in a nutshell. We need to come to our own conclusions for when to lay up, when to hit driver, and what is a reasonable risk. However, the point is that most people who pick up a golf club, and the majority of people on this forum do not keep those statistics. So they are basing their judgement off of misguided feelings that are ultimately hurting their score.

 

The whole point I am trying to make is that why wouldn't a player go off the mountain of data that suggests hitting drier on the majority of tee shots is the statistically better play? At least start there until you take enough data to suggest otherwise. If you continue to believe that your 3 wood is the better option off most tees you're most likely leaving strokes out on the course. That is what the data suggests. Again, there is no statistical evidence to suggest the that laying up with a fairway lowers golfers scores. There is evidence that hitting driver from more tee shots will lower average golfers scores.

 

As a side note, I am fairly sure Broadie does somewhat define what is reasonable in a sense. I can't recall exactly what he came up with however.

 

As I've said previously, I'm not a stats person, so my view is obviously skewed that way.

 

But point #4 still irritates me. I've played enough that I DO in fact know my game. They are not "misguided feelings". They are conscious, thought through decisions based upon my knowledge of my game, my abilities, and my swing and feel on that particular day. Especially as I'm preparing for that particular shot.

 

No amount of studies or research can duplicate all those factors that are unique to me. And constantly changing.

[Juice1121]

Sounds like a good starting point - but do you know if those yardages for #2 and #3 specific to certain type of player - or does he suggest they are valid for all levels of play?

 

I am not certain, but I would assume he is referring to middle of the road players. It's probably just a general rule of thumb, but it should apply to HHers around 25 down to scratch type players.

 

Anyone with a higher handicap than 25 most likely does not strike the ball consistently enough to follow tendencies and carry relevant statistics based on their own game. They should be more worried with developing skill then how to manage a course to drop scores. Taking lessons and figuring how to control face to path and make centered contact should be their goal. That will do far more for their game than trying to tackle the 3wd vs driver debate.

 

Subsequently most players scratch or better probably have their own data that will affect their choices so they can ignore these general rules. If you have the data for your own game, then you can make your own conclusions and don't have to rely on broadie or fawcetts research.

[Stuart_G]

1) I think that would be an interesting discussion, but maybe not in this thread as I think it would derail it from the topic

 

Not sure I'd consider it a derailment considering the topic title - but even more surprising is that anyone is worried about derailment considering all that's happened in the 29 pages of this thread. Might actually freshen things up a bit :-)

 

 

Overall, I don't think we are that far apart in our thinking. A few subtle differences but I'll leave it to you to determine how important they may or may not be.

 

 

 

2) I think most average golfers over complicate it. I have 5 holes on my home course that require a risk reward type assessment. 4 are par 3's and the rest are holes with little to no trouble on them besides rough and OB that is miles away. That means 50% of holes set up to be no brainier driver off the tee holes. I would be surprised if most average public courses aren't set up in a similar fashion.

 

For courses that are really that open, I would suspect the only problem would come from the few who are overly concerned about rough vs fairway- as you say, if there is no other real trouble, it's a no-brainer. And while I don't think that's as high a percentage as some have lead on (but that's a old, tired part of this dicusion so not going to get anywhere rehashing it) more importantly if those folks haven't learned enough about the rough vs fairway argument from the previous 28 pages, nothing else anyone says is going to make any difference.

 

But .. I can't speak for the area and course where you play, but I play quite a few different courses around here in northern New England. And from all that sampling, there are very few holes were there isn't some amount of risk. Mostly heavily wooded areas (not talking about a few trees separating fairways) with lots of underbrush, or extremely poor lies for the mountain courses, plenty of rocks, gullies and places that you just have to avoid that might not officially be a hazard or OB. So the 'no-brainers' really are few and far between. It would be nice if there was, but on my home course there is not a single hole that's that type of "no-brainer".

 

but I think if we were on the same course looking at the same holes and having a discussion, we would come to a very similar conclusions about when its safe to hit driver.

 

For the most part I agree we probably would (I can't speak for Broadie :-) - except maybe for the timing. I'm working on some swing changes and the driver is the last club to behave when I do that so my dispersion with the driver (right now) is quite a bit larger then it is for the fairway or hybrids than what might be typical for most at my level.

 

4) I agree with you in a nutshell. We need to come to our own conclusions for when to lay up, when to hit driver, and what is a reasonable risk. However, the point is that most people who pick up a golf club, and the majority of people on this forum do not keep those statistics. So they are basing their judgement off of misguided feelings that are ultimately hurting their score.

 

Here's were we might differ the most. For the most part they are basing it on past experiences so I wouldn't discount the source, it can quite frequently have some validity to it. Yes, I will say that it might be a bit skewed for some since sometimes the bad shots seem to stick out in peoples minds much more then the good ones - especially when we have to make those decisions. But I would always trust those feelings as a guideline much more then I would the statistical averages.

 

As another related tangent, the human factor is a huge point that can't be ignored. Sure, for casual rounds and practice rounds we should encourage people to try different options off the tee and see what their percentages really are. But when the pressure is on, the only choice is to pick a club you are actually comfortable with. If there is no confidence int he shot, the chances of getting into trouble significantly increase.

 

 

Again, there is no statistical evidence to suggest the that laying up with a fairway lowers golfers scores. There is evidence that hitting driver from more tee shots will lower average golfers scores.

 

Not sure why you keep bringing this up - there is plenty of statistics (not to mention common sense) that says that NOT hitting it OB, or into a hazard or into the woods, or fescue, etc.. does lower scores. That's the real reason most people choose to club down, to stay out of trouble that costs them strokes. IF the only reason they are club'ing down is to stay out of the rough (and the rough really isn't that bad) then I agree with you 100%. But only looking at that one reason is a bit short sighted.

[Stuart_G]

Sounds like a good starting point - but do you know if those yardages for #2 and #3 specific to certain type of player - or does he suggest they are valid for all levels of play?

 

I am not certain, but I would assume he is referring to middle of the road players. It's probably just a general rule of thumb, but it should apply to HHers around 25 down to scratch type players.

 

Thanks.

[Juice1121]

Stuart, I think we agree for the most part about larger concepts, just not implementation.

 

Towards the last point, Show me the statistics, show me the studies that say laying up lowers scores. Again, do not mention OB or hazards, as in that is obvious places to lay up. Broadie does not talk about these instances, so I am not sure why you/others keep mentioning them as they are not relevant to the discussion. Those unfortunately are not the only reasons players club down. We are in a thread that is full of people saying they club down to stay out of the rough. I can point to several members of this forum that say they would rather be x amount of yards back and in the fairway than up closer and in the rough. Sure there is a diminishing level of return here for being closer, but for the most part the difference between driver and fairway should be anywhere from 20-40 yards. Broadie suggests that assessment is false for the majority of players. That is the argument I am making. I am not sure why people keep trying to make it more complicated than it is. Hitting 8 irons into greens instead of 6 or 5 irons will lower your scores. Hitting 5 irons into greens instead of 5 woods will also lower your scores. Hitting driver off the tee as opposed to fairway will put you into positions to score whether you are in the rough or the fairway.

 

4) I agree with you in a nutshell. We need to come to our own conclusions for when to lay up, when to hit driver, and what is a reasonable risk. However, the point is that most people who pick up a golf club, and the majority of people on this forum do not keep those statistics. So they are basing their judgement off of misguided feelings that are ultimately hurting their score.

 

The whole point I am trying to make is that why wouldn't a player go off the mountain of data that suggests hitting drier on the majority of tee shots is the statistically better play? At least start there until you take enough data to suggest otherwise. If you continue to believe that your 3 wood is the better option off most tees you're most likely leaving strokes out on the course. That is what the data suggests. Again, there is no statistical evidence to suggest the that laying up with a fairway lowers golfers scores. There is evidence that hitting driver from more tee shots will lower average golfers scores.

 

As a side note, I am fairly sure Broadie does somewhat define what is reasonable in a sense. I can't recall exactly what he came up with however.

 

As I've said previously, I'm not a stats person, so my view is obviously skewed that way.

 

But point #4 still irritates me. I've played enough that I DO in fact know my game. They are not "misguided feelings". They are conscious, thought through decisions based upon my knowledge of my game, my abilities, and my swing and feel on that particular day. Especially as I'm preparing for that particular shot.

 

No amount of studies or research can duplicate all those factors that are unique to me. And constantly changing.

 

You do you man. But you can't really prove you are accurately making assessments without the data to back it up. If you have been playing for 20 years and you know your game then you play to the way you want. I would just suggest maybe keeping the data for one season and see if it backs up your thoughts or not. I'm not saying you have to have an excel program or anything crazy.

 

If a random HHer wants to lower their score, but they don't have that experience or data to suggest laying up with a 3 wood will be better for their game, then they should follow the general rule of thumb that being closer to the hole with every shot will lower their score. That's all I'm saying.

[jacobEDGE]

I'm still confused why people keep pushing the loss of yardage between a 3 wood and Driver as an absolute fact.

 

Here are some stats from my most recent round played (Sunday).

 

 

 

 

Sure, the sample size isn't the exact same, but it's pretty damn spot on for what my averages are, and what happens a majority of the time. 3 wood is just as long, if not longer than my driver, AND more consistent at the same time.

[Juice1121]

Because there should 100% be a loss of yards between the two clubs. Not having one suggests a fundamental flaw in either swing or the club fit.

 

The sample size there is too small. If you are hitting your 3 wood equal or longer than your driver on average it would suggest your driver does not fit you. There should be a gap of at least 15-20 yards carry between the two assuming there is a difference in 5-7* of loft and longer shaft.

[jacobEDGE]

Because there should 100% be a loss of yards between the two clubs. Not having one suggests a fundamental flaw in either swing or the club fit.

 

The sample size there is too small. If you are hitting your 3 wood equal or longer than your driver on average it would suggest your driver does not fit you. There should be a gap of at least 15-20 yards carry between the two assuming there is a difference in 5-7* of loft.

 

It's the driver that yielded the best results during my fitting...so I don't know what else to say? My 3 wood is crazy long compared to the distances in the rest of my bag.

 

8-iron (37º) : 150

4-iron (23º) : 200

3-hybrid (19º): 225

3-wood (15º): 260-ish

Driver (9.5º): 260-ish

 

Maybe I just found the super magical 3 wood head & shaft combo for my swing. /shrugs

[Golf4lifer]

I'm still confused why people keep pushing the loss of yardage between a 3 wood and Driver as an absolute fact.

 

Here are some stats from my most recent round played (Sunday).

 

 

 

 

Sure, the sample size isn't the exact same, but it's pretty damn spot on for what my averages are, and what happens a majority of the time. 3 wood is just as long, if not longer than my driver, AND more consistent at the same time.

 

Did you get fit for your driver? I ask because there is something wrong with your driver numbers, maybe you are hitting it solidly. I say this because you and I hit our 3 woods about the same distances, but my driver shots are typically 30 to 50 yards further then my 3 wood.

[Juice1121]

Because there should 100% be a loss of yards between the two clubs. Not having one suggests a fundamental flaw in either swing or the club fit.

 

The sample size there is too small. If you are hitting your 3 wood equal or longer than your driver on average it would suggest your driver does not fit you. There should be a gap of at least 15-20 yards carry between the two assuming there is a difference in 5-7* of loft.

 

It's the driver that yielded the best results during my fitting...so I don't know what else to say? My 3 wood is crazy long compared to the distances in the rest of my bag.

 

8-iron : 150

4-iron : 200

3-hybrid: 225

3-wood: 260-ish

Driver: 260-ish

 

Maybe I just found the super magical 3 wood head & shaft combo for my swing. /shrugs

 

That's possible. What were your numbers in the fitting if you have access to them? for driver and/or 3wood.

[jacobEDGE]

Since the sample size was so small from that 1 round, here are my all time stats for my:

 

1. Old driver (SLDR)

2. New driver (M1 440)

3. New 3-wood (M2 Tour)

 

I've currently taken my new driver out of the bag, and have replaced it with my old faithful. It's insane how much distance I lost with a new club with new technology that boasts improvements in everything.

 

[jacobEDGE]

Here are my numbers for the driver fitting. The old driver listed is my SLDR 430.

 

 

I don't even know how much I trust these numbers, because 35 yards of rollout seems like an insane amount. I highly highly doubt I get that much roll on the course.

[Stuart_G]

Stuart, I think we agree for the most part about larger concepts, just not implementation.

 

Towards the last point, Show me the statistics, show me the studies that say laying up lowers scores. Again, do not mention OB or hazards, as in that is obvious places to lay up. Broadie does not talk about these instances, so I am not sure why you/others keep mentioning them as they are not relevant to the discussion. Those unfortunately are not the only reasons players club down. We are in a thread that is full of people saying they club down to stay out of the rough. I can point to several members of this forum that say they would rather be x amount of yards back and in the fairway than up closer and in the rough. Sure there is a diminishing level of return here for being closer, but for the most part the difference between driver and fairway should be anywhere from 20-40 yards. Broadie suggests that assessment is false for the majority of players. That is the argument I am making. I am not sure why people keep trying to make it more complicated than it is. Hitting 8 irons into greens instead of 6 or 5 irons will lower your scores. Hitting 5 irons into greens instead of 5 woods will also lower your scores. Hitting driver off the tee as opposed to fairway will put you into positions to score whether you are in the rough or the fairway.

 

 

Yes it could be a matter of implementation we disagree on.

 

Broadie's statistics and conclusions support it. The dangerous areas he's concludes that need to be avoided and go into the selection of a club off the tee include much more then just hazards and OB.

 

I went back 5 pages and only found 1 post from someone who said they made a choice just to keep it out of the rough. The thread is only "full" of people saying they choose to club down to keep the ball in play, not just to avoid OB or a hazard.

 

Broadie himself (at least in one of his interviews) said

 

If you hit it longer, and you don’t hit too many more wild shots, you can gain a lot versus laying back and hitting more fairways, but there are a lot of variables you have to take into account.

 

I just don't think it's an accurate representation of Broadie's conclusions to ignore all those variables or encourage anyone else to ignore them. Oversimplification of the decision is a valid problem as I see it (and I think Broodie would agree). If you don't that's fine, everyone is entitled to their own perspectives and opinions.

 

BTW - I did find a mention (by Broodie) to the percentages that warrants avoidance. It was something like even 1 or 2 in 100. Which means that (based on that recommendation from Broadie), if I can't keep my driver out of trouble 99% of the time (with respect to the alternative), I shouldn't be using it. If I followed that advice, I'd never be able to use my driver on any of the local courses.