Jump to content

3W vs Driver off the tee


Recommended Posts

if PSG ever remained on point, i think the discussion would have been much better, but....

 

its all a matter of perspective.

 

Not agreeing with you and not being on point isn't the same thing.

 

For example, look at the guy above you. I'm sure he's a nice guy. But he's a 7 cap and he's claiming to hit 60-70% of fairways with a 3 wood between 240 and 260 (time periods are a bit sketchy, could be 250-260 or 230-260).

 

Those are incredible numbers. Unless he is the worst putter in the world and four putts constantly, there is no way he is a 7 cap with those numbers. Notice that all the numbers are round (its 60-70, not 62 or 65. 60.) and its not 237, its 240. The accuracy to distance ratio in that post is delusional. I'm not trying to be mean, but as I explained earlier, these statistics would make him about 3.5% better with his three wood off the tee than Tony Finau, who is the best on Tour (Accuracy adjusted for distance - Finau is 41 feet out of 852 feet on average). Even if we "gear down" to somebody the same distance as he is, he is almost identical to Chez Revie, who is 68% with a 247-ish yard strike.

 

So, no, I don't think its valuable to "analyze" this. He has no idea how accurate he is or how far he hits it. His brain is remembering outliers.

 

I don't think you can have a productive discussion about equipment if a 7 cap is posting that he is as good off the tee with a 3 wood as a touring professional and everyone else is nodding.

 

I don't know why you keep calling me out, but taking advice from posters who clearly have no idea how far or how straight they hit the ball isn't productive. Earlier, we agreed to disagree and you are the one who felt the need to revive an attack on me for some reason.

 

If you have an actual reason my content is wrong, please post. If all your going to do i get pissy that I don't agree with you that you have to measure to improve, we can agree to disagree.

 

NOTE: I don't think he's lying or he has some sort of sinister motive. I think he actually thinks he's 60-70% at those numbers. I just don't think there is any way that is true.

 

EDIT

If I had those numbers (maybe 4 cap with driver, touring professional with 3 wood) I'd hit 3 wood off the tee too. But we can't have any sort of discussion about which is better when people just make up the numbers. His brain has categorized three wood as "good" and driver as "bad" and then attributed statistics to each.

its not an attack but you seem overly sensitive, I was nearly pointing out you have taken the discussion in many different directions and taken us off point multiple times. no big deal but your theory is just that....a theory drowned in statistics that mean nothing to the average golfer....you say hitting from the rough behind a tree is statistically more accurate than being in a fairway because you hit it longer....i disagree.....its like saying air travel is safer than automobiles....it is by the numbers but when planes start flying 5 feet away from one another, let me know
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

 

 

I honestly think this thread would be done if it weren't for comments like the one above in red. PSG, Halliedog made a statement about an 82 yr old playing shorter to avoid deep rough, from which there was "no chance of reaching the green". Now if the rough in this situation actually restricts the golfers ability to reach the green it seems that would be considered a "stroke costing hazard", which you have professed in previous posts, is actually worth avoiding. Yet you called this a "silly comment" in need of correction.I believe if you could possibly refrain from this type of thing, we could all get on with our daily lives. AND, continue to enjoy playing the way we see fit whether others agree with it or not.

 

And now you're beating up on JacobEDGE because he rounds off his yardage instead of lasering everything (talk about a slow round?) and you can't understand that he has a new Dr/3w in which the driver doesn't work for him and the 3w does. You seem to always forget that it's not just degrees offline with people. there are many out there who slice their driver off the planet while hitting a slight draw with their 3w. All because the driver just doesn't fit them.

 

It's not the information your presenting that is getting on peoples nerves, it's the presentation.

 

BT

amen

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I honestly think this thread would be done if it weren't for comments like the one above in red. PSG, Halliedog made a statement about an 82 yr old playing shorter to avoid deep rough, from which there was "no chance of reaching the green". Now if the rough in this situation actually restricts the golfers ability to reach the green it seems that would be considered a "stroke costing hazard", which you have professed in previous posts, is actually worth avoiding. Yet you called this a "silly comment" in need of correction.I believe if you could possibly refrain from this type of thing, we could all get on with our daily lives. AND, continue to enjoy playing the way we see fit whether others agree with it or not.

 

And now you're beating up on JacobEDGE because he rounds off his yardage instead of lasering everything (talk about a slow round?) and you can't understand that he has a new Dr/3w in which the driver doesn't work for him and the 3w does. You seem to always forget that it's not just degrees offline with people. there are many out there who slice their driver off the planet while hitting a slight draw with their 3w. All because the driver just doesn't fit them.

 

It's not the information your presenting that is getting on peoples nerves, it's the presentation.

 

BT

amen

 

This thread was done (As I said) until tescor came back with a pot shot after a day of idleness for some reason.

 

I'm not "being mean", there is no chance a 7 cap is hitting his 3 wood 250 with 70% accuracy. Its delusional. And if we are discussion 3 wood versus driver, the discussion is nonsense if we are going to take that at face value. Yes, you should hit 3 wood if you hit it like a touring professional and you are a 7 cap. The point is that he has no idea. He thinks he hits the 3 wood better, and he backs into rounded off garbage numbers. They're not "rounded off" man, they're silly.

 

If the presentation offends you, that's unfortunate. I don't know how else to tell a 7 cap that they don't hit a 3 wood like Chez Revie.

 

you say hitting from the rough behind a tree is statistically more accurate than being in a fairway because you hit it longer....i disagree....

 

Why did you add "behind a tree" ? I never said that at all. I said "rough". In fact, I said several times that trees can be stroke causing hazards.

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

Bridgestone j40 DPC 6-PW x100

Vokey sm5 50/12F 56/10S x100

Taylormade Spider X

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not "being mean", there is no chance a 7 cap is hitting his 3 wood 250 with 70% accuracy. Its delusional. The point is that he has no idea. He thinks he hits the 3 wood better, and he backs into rounded off garbage numbers.

 

I'm still delusional and "have no idea" about my numbers, even after posting legit, actual on-course data backing up my "garbage numbers".

 

And btw, that 50% 3-wood accuracy is off the tee. You add the other swing from a par 5 fairway that found the green, and you have 3 out of 5 swings being accurate. Which, in case you can't do basic bath, is 60% accuracy. Which plays into me being more comfortable taking my M2 Tour 3 wood off the tee than my M1 440.

 

FYI, that round was a -1, 71 too. Which after a good weekend of golf (77-74-81-71) I'm now trending at a 6.0.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I honestly think this thread would be done if it weren't for comments like the one above in red. PSG, Halliedog made a statement about an 82 yr old playing shorter to avoid deep rough, from which there was "no chance of reaching the green". Now if the rough in this situation actually restricts the golfers ability to reach the green it seems that would be considered a "stroke costing hazard", which you have professed in previous posts, is actually worth avoiding. Yet you called this a "silly comment" in need of correction.I believe if you could possibly refrain from this type of thing, we could all get on with our daily lives. AND, continue to enjoy playing the way we see fit whether others agree with it or not.

 

And now you're beating up on JacobEDGE because he rounds off his yardage instead of lasering everything (talk about a slow round?) and you can't understand that he has a new Dr/3w in which the driver doesn't work for him and the 3w does. You seem to always forget that it's not just degrees offline with people. there are many out there who slice their driver off the planet while hitting a slight draw with their 3w. All because the driver just doesn't fit them.

 

It's not the information your presenting that is getting on peoples nerves, it's the presentation.

 

BT

amen

 

This thread was done (As I said) until tescor came back with a pot shot after a day of idleness for some reason.

 

I'm not "being mean", there is no chance a 7 cap is hitting his 3 wood 250 with 70% accuracy. Its delusional. And if we are discussion 3 wood versus driver, the discussion is nonsense if we are going to take that at face value. Yes, you should hit 3 wood if you hit it like a touring professional and you are a 7 cap. The point is that he has no idea. He thinks he hits the 3 wood better, and he backs into rounded off garbage numbers. They're not "rounded off" man, they're silly.

 

If the presentation offends you, that's unfortunate. I don't know how else to tell a 7 cap that they don't hit a 3 wood like Chez Revie.

 

you say hitting from the rough behind a tree is statistically more accurate than being in a fairway because you hit it longer....i disagree....

 

Why did you add "behind a tree" ? I never said that at all. I said "rough". In fact, I said several times that trees can be stroke causing hazards.

you drew trees and rocks in your paint presentation with the guy who hit his driver 320 and he was somehow more accurate than the guy who used his 3 wood, hit it in the fairway but was "only" 260 or whatever it was
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I honestly think this thread would be done if it weren't for comments like the one above in red. PSG, Halliedog made a statement about an 82 yr old playing shorter to avoid deep rough, from which there was "no chance of reaching the green". Now if the rough in this situation actually restricts the golfers ability to reach the green it seems that would be considered a "stroke costing hazard", which you have professed in previous posts, is actually worth avoiding. Yet you called this a "silly comment" in need of correction.I believe if you could possibly refrain from this type of thing, we could all get on with our daily lives. AND, continue to enjoy playing the way we see fit whether others agree with it or not.

 

And now you're beating up on JacobEDGE because he rounds off his yardage instead of lasering everything (talk about a slow round?) and you can't understand that he has a new Dr/3w in which the driver doesn't work for him and the 3w does. You seem to always forget that it's not just degrees offline with people. there are many out there who slice their driver off the planet while hitting a slight draw with their 3w. All because the driver just doesn't fit them.

 

It's not the information your presenting that is getting on peoples nerves, it's the presentation.

 

BT

amen

 

This thread was done (As I said) until tescor came back with a pot shot after a day of idleness for some reason.

 

I'm not "being mean", there is no chance a 7 cap is hitting his 3 wood 250 with 70% accuracy. Its delusional. And if we are discussion 3 wood versus driver, the discussion is nonsense if we are going to take that at face value. Yes, you should hit 3 wood if you hit it like a touring professional and you are a 7 cap. The point is that he has no idea. He thinks he hits the 3 wood better, and he backs into rounded off garbage numbers. They're not "rounded off" man, they're silly.

 

If the presentation offends you, that's unfortunate. I don't know how else to tell a 7 cap that they don't hit a 3 wood like Chez Revie.

 

you say hitting from the rough behind a tree is statistically more accurate than being in a fairway because you hit it longer....i disagree....

 

Why did you add "behind a tree" ? I never said that at all. I said "rough". In fact, I said several times that trees can be stroke causing hazards.

 

Okay, here we go. Below is the post by JacobEDGE to which I AND you are referring.

 

"I didn't carry a driver in my bag until I was about 21. Played a Callaway Hawkeye 4-wood off the tee my entire high school career.

 

Lately, I've been playing with a TP SLDR 430 driver, and a SLDR S 3-wood. Same size fade with both clubs, which it manageable and I hit 60-70% fairways.

 

Driver: 250-260

3-wood: 230-240

 

I just upgraded to a 2017 M1 440 driver, and the 2017 M2 Tour 3 Wood. This driver has a full blown 20-30 yard slice that I have to aim left rough just to catch the right side of the fairway. 3 wood has a slight fade and can even have a straight ball flight every once in a while.

 

Driver: 230-240

3-wood: 250-260

 

 

So I'm currently hitting my 3 wood much more consistent, straighter, and longer than my driver. Which is a shame, because that's one expensive a** club to never take out of the bag. "

 

If you read carefully, line by line, you will see that he mentions what he played in HS, then he mentions what he has been playing recently - The TP SLDR 430 and SLDR S 3w for which he gives you estimated accuracy of 60-70% and distances of 250-260 with the DRIVER and 230-240 with the 3w.

 

He then mentions his NEW Dr/3w which are M1 440 and M2 Tour respectively with distances of 230-240 driver (big slice due to ill fitting) and 250-260 with 3w (apparently well fitting!). No mention of percentage accuracy, only the note that the driver slices badly and the 3w does not. AND, since he is actually getting MORE distance withhis new 3w, he's using that over his ill fitting driver.

 

So, you now calling HIM delusional because YOU have mixed the approximated accuracy percentages of his previous gamer with the distances of his new 3w!! You see how that might rub someone the wrong way???

 

BT

Bag 1

Cobra King LTD Pro 9.5* HZRDUS Black 7 6.0 @ 44.5"
King LTD 14.5 - Aldila RIP Beta 80 S @ 43"
F6 5-7 @ 17.5 - Aldila RIP Beta 80 S @ 41.5"
Mizuno MP5 4-PW - Aldila RIP Tour 115 R
Mizuno MP-T5 52, 56 & 60 - TT Wedge
Grips - Grip Master Master Perforated Midsize

Bag 2
F7 9.5* - Aldila Copperhead 70TX @ 44.5
King LTD Blk 14.5* - Aldila RIP Beta 80 S @ 43
King LTD Blk 19* - Aldila RIP Beta 80 S @ 41.5
Mizuno MP15 4-pw - Aldila RIP Tour 115 R
Mizuno MP-T5 Black 52, 56 & 60 - TT Wedge
Grips - Grip Master Classic Wrap Midsize

Bag 3
Mizuno ST190 9.5* - Diamana "Flowerband" Whiteboard 73 S @ 44.5"
Mizuno ST190 14.5* - Aldila RIP Phenom 80 S @ 43"
Epic Flash Heavenwood 19* - Aldila RIP Phenom 80 S @ 42" 
Mizuno MP25 4-pw - Recoil Proto 125 F4
Mizuno MP-T5 Satin 52, 56, & 60 TT Wedge
Grips - Grip Master Roo Midsize





Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one think you really need to address the issue rather than playing a club that yes will be straighter but also shorter. For those who are okay with losing anywhere between 30+ yards off the tee, that can place you in shots with 200 plus yardages into the green then so be it. Now if you are okay with moving up a tee box then there is your answer for that. But to me main reason I was told with 3 woods become straighter is the added loft of course. More forward spin rather than side spin with the lower degree driver. I think players really need to seek expert advice from teaching pros that might make a dramatic impact on your golf game. Im not against playing 3 wood off the tee but unless all you play is a muni golf course with no carry needed to your drive than there you go. Im all about improving whether at the driving range, short game area, putting green, but if you dont know whats causing your swing flaw you should book some lessons and really get more out of your game.

TaylorMade M6 Hazrdous Smoke 70 6.5 
TaylorMade SLDR 3 Hazrdous Smoke 70 6.5 

TaylorMade SLDR 5 Hazrdous Smoke 70 6.5

Mizuno Hmb 3 Nippon Matte Black 105X
Mizuno Mp 4 Nippon Matte Black 105X 4-PW

Cleveland Zip Core RTG Tour Issue Spinner 52/58

Cleveland Hunington Beach Raw
Vice Pro+ Lime Green Goodness

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can sum up most of the posts in this thread with the following:

 

"I'm right and you're wrong."

 

 

As for this whole discussion, all I know is that my best scores are achieved with GIR. I chose my tee box club based on what will give me my best opportunity for another GIR. It really is just that simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't gone through all of Every Shot Counts but I do accept the concept and try to follow it. I am more likely to hit the green from 80yds than 100yds or from 140yds than 160yds. Hell I'm likely to be closer to the hole with a 50yd. pitch than an 80yd sand wedge.

could you say the same thing if you were playing in thick rough as opposed to back a little bit and being in the Fairway?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't gone through all of Every Shot Counts but I do accept the concept and try to follow it. I am more likely to hit the green from 80yds than 100yds or from 140yds than 160yds. Hell I'm likely to be closer to the hole with a 50yd. pitch than an 80yd sand wedge.

could you say the same thing if you were playing in thick rough as opposed to back a little bit and being in the Fairway?

 

Yes

Ping G410 Plus 10.5°/Alta CB55 r flex
Ping G400 7w/Xcaliber FW r flex
Ping G400 4h/Xcaliber HY r flex
Ping G400 5h/Xcaliber HY r flex
Maltby KE4 Tour+ 6-G/Xcaliber Rapid Taper r flex
Maltby TSW 54° and 58°/Xcaliber Rapid Taper r flex
Mizuno Bettinardi C06

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I honestly think this thread would be done if it weren't for comments like the one above in red. PSG, Halliedog made a statement about an 82 yr old playing shorter to avoid deep rough, from which there was "no chance of reaching the green". Now if the rough in this situation actually restricts the golfers ability to reach the green it seems that would be considered a "stroke costing hazard", which you have professed in previous posts, is actually worth avoiding. Yet you called this a "silly comment" in need of correction.I believe if you could possibly refrain from this type of thing, we could all get on with our daily lives. AND, continue to enjoy playing the way we see fit whether others agree with it or not.

 

And now you're beating up on JacobEDGE because he rounds off his yardage instead of lasering everything (talk about a slow round?) and you can't understand that he has a new Dr/3w in which the driver doesn't work for him and the 3w does. You seem to always forget that it's not just degrees offline with people. there are many out there who slice their driver off the planet while hitting a slight draw with their 3w. All because the driver just doesn't fit them.

 

It's not the information your presenting that is getting on peoples nerves, it's the presentation.

 

BT

amen

 

This thread was done (As I said) until tescor came back with a pot shot after a day of idleness for some reason.

 

I'm not "being mean", there is no chance a 7 cap is hitting his 3 wood 250 with 70% accuracy. Its delusional. And if we are discussion 3 wood versus driver, the discussion is nonsense if we are going to take that at face value. Yes, you should hit 3 wood if you hit it like a touring professional and you are a 7 cap. The point is that he has no idea. He thinks he hits the 3 wood better, and he backs into rounded off garbage numbers. They're not "rounded off" man, they're silly.

 

If the presentation offends you, that's unfortunate. I don't know how else to tell a 7 cap that they don't hit a 3 wood like Chez Revie.

 

you say hitting from the rough behind a tree is statistically more accurate than being in a fairway because you hit it longer....i disagree....

 

Why did you add "behind a tree" ? I never said that at all. I said "rough". In fact, I said several times that trees can be stroke causing hazards.

 

Okay, here we go. Below is the post by JacobEDGE to which I AND you are referring.

 

"I didn't carry a driver in my bag until I was about 21. Played a Callaway Hawkeye 4-wood off the tee my entire high school career.

 

Lately, I've been playing with a TP SLDR 430 driver, and a SLDR S 3-wood. Same size fade with both clubs, which it manageable and I hit 60-70% fairways.

 

Driver: 250-260

3-wood: 230-240

 

I just upgraded to a 2017 M1 440 driver, and the 2017 M2 Tour 3 Wood. This driver has a full blown 20-30 yard slice that I have to aim left rough just to catch the right side of the fairway. 3 wood has a slight fade and can even have a straight ball flight every once in a while.

 

Driver: 230-240

3-wood: 250-260

 

 

So I'm currently hitting my 3 wood much more consistent, straighter, and longer than my driver. Which is a shame, because that's one expensive a** club to never take out of the bag. "

 

If you read carefully, line by line, you will see that he mentions what he played in HS, then he mentions what he has been playing recently - The TP SLDR 430 and SLDR S 3w for which he gives you estimated accuracy of 60-70% and distances of 250-260 with the DRIVER and 230-240 with the 3w.

 

He then mentions his NEW Dr/3w which are M1 440 and M2 Tour respectively with distances of 230-240 driver (big slice due to ill fitting) and 250-260 with 3w (apparently well fitting!). No mention of percentage accuracy, only the note that the driver slices badly and the 3w does not. AND, since he is actually getting MORE distance withhis new 3w, he's using that over his ill fitting driver.

 

So, you now calling HIM delusional because YOU have mixed the approximated accuracy percentages of his previous gamer with the distances of his new 3w!! You see how that might rub someone the wrong way???

 

BT

 

Yes, I am calling him delusional. I didn't do any calcuations on his driver. I used his old 3 wood distances at 60/70% accuracy and his new ones and assumed with a 10 yard increase (which is 5%), that accuracy would drop by 5% (which it almost certainly would). EVEN IF I GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF ALL DOUBT, and take his new distances at 50% accuracy (there is now way it would degrade that much, but lets give him every benefit) he would still, as a 7 cap, fit squarely in the middle of the web.com tour for skill off the tee with a 3 wood. No chance.

 

I read his post carefully, which is why I said in mine that the distances were a bit sketchy and provided two analyses. Under the first analysis, using his first set of numbers, he is roughly 3.5% better than the best player on the PGA Tour with his 3 wood off the tee adjusted for distance and accuracy (Tony Finau, who has 41 foot proximity on 852 feet of distance). Under the second analysis, using his second set of numbers, he is no longer claiming to be the best player on the PGA Tour but simply in the bottom 2/3rds, about as good as Chez Reavie (240 at around 70%). So even though he didn't provide an accuracy percent for the second set of numbers, if we assume a natrual progression he's claiming to be Chez Reavie and if we assume a HUGE drop in accuracy (giving him the benefit of every single doubt) he is still claiming to be better than most of the web.com tour and very close to Kevin Streelman (Streelman is better, but not by much).

 

I read his post, and I did analysis on 60-70% hit at the first yardage and then a few with different scenarios at the second. So yes, I think he is delusional.

 

I think this is extremely common, and this thought process has been studied in golfers. Its called top down thinking. Here is how it works:

 

1. My 3 wood is my best club.

2. What are good numbers for a 3 wood? After all, its my best club.

3. Eh, 250 and 60%.

 

This is why I posted in this thread. When you make decision about what to hit off the tee box, you are going to make suboptimal decisions if you honestly believe you were Tony Finau with your old set up and just behind the top 150 players in the world with your new "worse" set up.

 

There is a 0% chance, 0%, that if I tee'd up 100 balls he is hitting 60 of them in the fairway past a 240 yard line AND that he's a 7 cap. Those two things cannot both be true. If he was scratch, fine. But a 7? Ridiculous.

 

The reason people get fooled by this is because it is exponential. As you lose yardage, you gain accuracy. Its not linear. So if he was 220 (instead of 240) that doesn't sound like much, but it makes him 20 yards shorter AND about 10% more accurate, so the numbers come down fast. I might buy 220 and 60% or 240 and 40%. There is no chance he is that good. If he was a scratch player I might buy it and think it was putting or something, but he's a freaking 7 cap.

 

Louis Ooustishazen (Sp), thought by many to have the best swing on tour, averages (averages!) 22 feet 2 inches from 100-125 yards. I've seen guys in my group throw clubs for hitting a wedge from 100 yards to 20 feet. Golfers have literally no idea what is going on for the most part, because they can't objectively judge themselves. Its not that the previous poster is a bad guy or a liar, its just that he reversed -engineered his numbers. He thought "I'm good with a 3 wood, what are good 3 wood numbers?" and then made them up.

 

This is why you should keep your statistics.

 

I'm sorry if I "come off the wrong way".. I don't know how else to say it when someone posts up numbers that are ludicrous.

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

Bridgestone j40 DPC 6-PW x100

Vokey sm5 50/12F 56/10S x100

Taylormade Spider X

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I honestly think this thread would be done if it weren't for comments like the one above in red. PSG, Halliedog made a statement about an 82 yr old playing shorter to avoid deep rough, from which there was "no chance of reaching the green". Now if the rough in this situation actually restricts the golfers ability to reach the green it seems that would be considered a "stroke costing hazard", which you have professed in previous posts, is actually worth avoiding. Yet you called this a "silly comment" in need of correction.I believe if you could possibly refrain from this type of thing, we could all get on with our daily lives. AND, continue to enjoy playing the way we see fit whether others agree with it or not.

 

And now you're beating up on JacobEDGE because he rounds off his yardage instead of lasering everything (talk about a slow round?) and you can't understand that he has a new Dr/3w in which the driver doesn't work for him and the 3w does. You seem to always forget that it's not just degrees offline with people. there are many out there who slice their driver off the planet while hitting a slight draw with their 3w. All because the driver just doesn't fit them.

 

It's not the information your presenting that is getting on peoples nerves, it's the presentation.

 

BT

amen

 

This thread was done (As I said) until tescor came back with a pot shot after a day of idleness for some reason.

 

I'm not "being mean", there is no chance a 7 cap is hitting his 3 wood 250 with 70% accuracy. Its delusional. And if we are discussion 3 wood versus driver, the discussion is nonsense if we are going to take that at face value. Yes, you should hit 3 wood if you hit it like a touring professional and you are a 7 cap. The point is that he has no idea. He thinks he hits the 3 wood better, and he backs into rounded off garbage numbers. They're not "rounded off" man, they're silly.

 

If the presentation offends you, that's unfortunate. I don't know how else to tell a 7 cap that they don't hit a 3 wood like Chez Revie.

 

you say hitting from the rough behind a tree is statistically more accurate than being in a fairway because you hit it longer....i disagree....

Why did you add "behind a tree" ? I never said that at all. I said "rough". In fact, I said several times that trees can be stroke causing hazards.

you drew trees and rocks in your paint presentation with the guy who hit his driver 320 and he was somehow more accurate than the guy who used his 3 wood, hit it in the fairway but was "only" 260 or whatever it was

 

*sighs*

 

He isn't more accurate. He is the same. Accuracy, in order to be useful in the future, has to factor out the course. Accuracy as a blend of club choice and impact condition. If I'm 2* open at impact and hit it 300 and your 3* open at impact and hit is 200 you'll be in the fairway and I won't be (likely) but I was one degree more accurate than you.

 

What you are suggesting is like saying that if you bomb one down the middle but hit a rake and the ball bounces left behind a tree you hit an inaccurate shot. There are things you can't control. All you can control is club choice and impact condition, and that's all accuracy should be judged on. Since where the ball comes to rest involves things you can't control, its hopeless, confidence-sapping (and misleading) to use that as the measure of your accuracy.

 

When I use the term "accuracy" I mean in terms of planning shots, not in terms of results. The topic is "should you scale back and hit your 3 wood" ? In order to answer that, you need to figure out if your 3 wood is actually more accurate or just happens to put you in good places on a particular course because its shorter.

 

A gust of wind doesn't make you less accurate. Playing your buddies' course that has wider fairways doesn't make you more accurate. Playing your other buddies' course with super tight fairways doesn't make you less accurate. Accuracy is how you strike the ball not where your ball lands.

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

Bridgestone j40 DPC 6-PW x100

Vokey sm5 50/12F 56/10S x100

Taylormade Spider X

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a reason you'll respond to everyone except me? You'll talk about me all you want, but you're not directly addressing me and the actual, course proven statistics I have posted.

 

Either you're a coward who can't admit he is wrong, or you're a subpar troll.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a reason you'll respond to everyone except me? You'll talk about me all you want, but you're not directly addressing me and the actual, course proven statistics I have posted.

 

Either you're a coward who can't admit he is wrong, or you're a subpar troll.

 

Missed the post, and I'm neither. If you shot -1 for the round you can't blame me for saying your numbers for shots during that round are unrealistic for a 7 cap. "I'm a 10 but today I shot even par here are my stats - what do you mean unrealistic for a 10?" <- I could absolute be missing something, but this is what your post seems to say.

 

If I'm reading this right, you are concluding you are normally 60% off the tee with a three wood averaging 250 because you did it 3 out of 5 times during a round in which you shot -1 as a 7 cap?

 

Is that correct or am I making a mistake in reading your post?

 

You said you had statistics for your previous set up, and those statistics were similar (and would also rank you as one of the best three wood strikers in the world). For those statistics, how many rounds did you have? What were the statistics with the old slider? What out of what? (you also cited statistics for your older setup, which is odd because they were even but must have had a ton of rounds).

 

EDIT

My post wasn't quoted by you in the follow up post, so I didn't see it. Apologies for missing it.

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

Bridgestone j40 DPC 6-PW x100

Vokey sm5 50/12F 56/10S x100

Taylormade Spider X

Link to post
Share on other sites

PSG, for someone who is ultra sensitive about being "called out" and "attacked", calling someone delusional isn't really walking the walk. You shouldnt attack anyone here if you don't like that yourself.

 

You can have all the stats in the world you want, but keep hitting it 320 into deep rough and into the woods and the guy who hits the 3 wood off the tee but is in the fairway will beat you every time. its golf, not statistics 101.

 

"Accuracy is how you strike the ball not where your ball lands" - hilarious.....

 

Is a marksmen not accurate based on where his bullet hits the target? Oh, its how he pulls the trigger.....

 

That being said, fitters should absolutely take into account a shorter shaft length for their players who have a hard time hitting a 45" length driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its golf, not statistics 101.

 

Actually it is statistics 101 - it's PSG's that's not really accurately or completely representing the significance of statistical results.

 

Statistics of a general population only tells us, on average what tends to be best for that population. It never can or will provide any universal truths that apply equally to everyone in that population - much less those outside it. Everyone has to track their own stats (and not just driving stats) to be able to really determine what's approach is best for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem gets significantly harder when you start looking at amateurs and higher handicap players who can't consistently strike the middle of the face. For a guy like me who is a 20... Am I better off taking out driver or 3w when there's trouble somewhere on the fairway? I can't answer that question based purely on stats approach or a PGA pro who assumes strike will always be pretty much near perfect.

 

I think confidence and mental image of how you can perform with that club could potentially outweigh stats, especially in the short term. I don't think anybody with half a brain could deny that a 100 yard shot from the fairway is 9.9/10 times going to result in a closer approach shot than one that is 150 yards away from the same lie, and that therefore to achieve such a result, the longest club you can take to get to that yardage is best. However.... When your striking is not going well and all else equal, sometimes taking the shorter club nets you better results short term. We then assume that because over the course of 1 or 2 rounds that this gave us optimal outcomes, that laying up or taking 3w off the tee at all times is superior.

 

The problem with stats is they can never take into account the mental and physical aspects of the game, at least not on the amateur scale, especially higher HC players.

SIM Max 9* | Ventus Black 6x

SIM Ti 19* | Fujikura Pro 2.0 TS 8x

Cobra Speedzone 18.5* | Accra FX 2.0 380M5

i210 4-PW | X100 Tour Issue 1xSS

Ping Glide 3.0 50/12, 54/12 | S400 Tour Issue

Cleveland CBX Full Face 60/10 | S400 Tour Issue Onyx

Cleveland SOFT Premier #4

ProV1x

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its golf, not statistics 101.

 

Actually it is statistics 101 - it's PSG's that's not really accurately representing the significance of statistical results.

 

Statistics of a general population only tells us, on average what tends to be best for that population. It never can or will provide any universal truths that apply equally to everyone in that population - much less those outside it. Everyone has to track their own stats (and not just driving stats) to be able to really determine what's approach is best for them.

 

Exactly. As I said earlier in this thread SG, as good as it is, is a descriptive statistic of a population. Golf is a complex phenomenon. Even as sophisticated as SG seems, it still has to flatten out individuals to fit a model.

 

SG is a zero sum game. It always has to add up by nature of the metric. I still that SG is the best metric out there, and is very very helpful. But you shouldn't worship it. At the end of the day people play golf. We live for the moments in life when we defy the numbers. Else let's just simulate all sports from now on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use 3w off the tee quite regularly. My normal ball flight is right to left but I have a miss with driver that is off the planet right. I don't really have that miss with 3w. If there is major trouble right (I mean OB, hazards, etc.) the driver usually stays in the bag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2016 m2 Deep faced 3w is just vicious + 10 grams of hot melt and ad di 9x in the head;

 

Uses

 

- high and a draw off the box , less roll than the driver, position vs all u can take distance

- nasty stinger into a west Texas wind

- 362 gram beat stick for "mashed potatoes "

 

Cons

 

- mentioned above encourages stupidity on par fives that should not be given consideration

SIM 8* AD TP 7tx 1.25" 
SIM 15* ADDI 90x tipped 2"
Titleist 2i 19.5* T-MB AD DI 105x (Tipped 2.5”)  Sans 2i R15 5w Fit on Pro 95XX (tipped 2.5”)
Titleist MB 620 3-PW (48* PW) Tour Issue X100s (HSx1) -1* Weak loft -2* flat 620mb specs 
TMAG MG2 52(@53*) SB 10* , 58(@59*) LB 9* bounce  - Tour Issue S400 (62* Lie angle) 
Piretti Potenza Sight Dot 365g |Bettinardi BB8 Trisole bare 348g | or Toulon San Diego Sight Line  - 68* Lie angle 2* of loft 
All woods & 2i hot melted, GP Tour Velvet . 580 Ping Hoofer 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it is statistics 101 - it's PSG's that's not really accurately or completely representing the significance of statistical results.

 

Statistics of a general population only tells us, on average what tends to be best for that population. It never can or will provide any universal truths that apply equally to everyone in that population - much less those outside it. Everyone has to track their own stats (and not just driving stats) to be able to really determine what's approach is best for them.

 

Exactly correct. I said earlier, most people are better from 80 than 100. But *IF* you track your own stats and you *ARE* actually better from 100, you should ignore me. However, most people skip actually finding out. They just reverse-engineer the numbers. In the absence of doing the work to actually track it, the best thing to do is to go by the general guidelines.Golf isn't chess and there will always be outliers and people who buck the trends. Could you find a 7 cap who hits a 3 wood like a tour pro? Maybe. I don't konow. But its incredibly unlikely. Most likely he is generally as good as the other 7 caps.

 

Of course they aer guidelines. But for them to be guideliens at all they have to exist in the first place. If your statistics are made up in your own head and completely out of touch with reality its *worse* than not having any at all.

 

I think the problem gets significantly harder when you start looking at amateurs and higher handicap players who can't consistently strike the middle of the face. For a guy like me who is a 20... Am I better off taking out driver or 3w when there's trouble somewhere on the fairway? I can't answer that question based purely on stats approach or a PGA pro who assumes strike will always be pretty much near perfect.

 

I think confidence and mental image of how you can perform with that club could potentially outweigh stats, especially in the short term. I don't think anybody with half a brain could deny that a 100 yard shot from the fairway is 9.9/10 times going to result in a closer approach shot than one that is 150 yards away from the same lie, and that therefore to achieve such a result, the longest club you can take to get to that yardage is best. However.... When your striking is not going well and all else equal, sometimes taking the shorter club nets you better results short term. We then assume that because over the course of 1 or 2 rounds that this gave us optimal outcomes, that laying up or taking 3w off the tee at all times is superior.

 

The problem with stats is they can never take into account the mental and physical aspects of the game, at least not on the amateur scale, especially higher HC players.

 

Correct, and I posted almost exactly this on page 6. When you are standing there on the tee its not that much help to you. However, it will be (1) a massive help to you in deciding what to work on to get better and (2) to give you a realistic look at your golf game, which very very few golfers actually have. For example, you say you "rarely" hit it in the middle of the face. Really? I doubt that is actually true. I don't thinkthe vast majority of your shots are toe and heel rockets. Its overhwelmingly likely your miss is not toe/heel 80% of the time. Why are you missing? Where? This is important information, not useless at all to any cap, for a variety of reasons.

 

Even 20 caps have overwhelming tendencies (read. the. book.). For example, you almost certainly have a predominate miss 65% of the time (you don't know what it is, but you have it, and you could play away from it).

 

Stop with the "using statistics from PGA Pros..." thing. Broadie's study used amateur golfers AND PGA pros at all skill levels. Have you read it?

 

PSG, for someone who is ultra sensitive about being "called out" and "attacked", calling someone delusional isn't really walking the walk. You shouldnt attack anyone here if you don't like that yourself.

 

You can have all the stats in the world you want, but keep hitting it 320 into deep rough and into the woods and the guy who hits the 3 wood off the tee but is in the fairway will beat you every time. its golf, not statistics 101.

 

"Accuracy is how you strike the ball not where your ball lands" - hilarious.....

 

Is a marksmen not accurate based on where his bullet hits the target? Oh, its how he pulls the trigger.....

 

That being said, fitters should absolutely take into account a shorter shaft length for their players who have a hard time hitting a 45" length driver.

 

I'm not sensitive at all. I calmly responded to each post. Attack all you want. Its an internet forum, not a firefight. Its pretty obvious at this point your goal isn't to understand what I'm saying (you don't) or to expand your mind or to be open to these ideas. No worries, to each his own.

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

Bridgestone j40 DPC 6-PW x100

Vokey sm5 50/12F 56/10S x100

Taylormade Spider X

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it is statistics 101 - it's PSG's that's not really accurately or completely representing the significance of statistical results.

 

Statistics of a general population only tells us, on average what tends to be best for that population. It never can or will provide any universal truths that apply equally to everyone in that population - much less those outside it. Everyone has to track their own stats (and not just driving stats) to be able to really determine what's approach is best for them.

 

Exactly correct. I said earlier, most people are better from 80 than 100. But *IF* you track your own stats and you *ARE* actually better from 100, you should ignore me. However, most people skip actually finding out. They just reverse-engineer the numbers. In the absence of doing the work to actually track it, the best thing to do is to go by the general guidelines.Golf isn't chess and there will always be outliers and people who buck the trends. Could you find a 7 cap who hits a 3 wood like a tour pro? Maybe. I don't konow. But its incredibly unlikely. Most likely he is generally as good as the other 7 caps.

 

Of course they aer guidelines. But for them to be guideliens at all they have to exist in the first place. If your statistics are made up in your own head and completely out of touch with reality its *worse* than not having any at all.

 

I think the problem gets significantly harder when you start looking at amateurs and higher handicap players who can't consistently strike the middle of the face. For a guy like me who is a 20... Am I better off taking out driver or 3w when there's trouble somewhere on the fairway? I can't answer that question based purely on stats approach or a PGA pro who assumes strike will always be pretty much near perfect.

 

I think confidence and mental image of how you can perform with that club could potentially outweigh stats, especially in the short term. I don't think anybody with half a brain could deny that a 100 yard shot from the fairway is 9.9/10 times going to result in a closer approach shot than one that is 150 yards away from the same lie, and that therefore to achieve such a result, the longest club you can take to get to that yardage is best. However.... When your striking is not going well and all else equal, sometimes taking the shorter club nets you better results short term. We then assume that because over the course of 1 or 2 rounds that this gave us optimal outcomes, that laying up or taking 3w off the tee at all times is superior.

 

The problem with stats is they can never take into account the mental and physical aspects of the game, at least not on the amateur scale, especially higher HC players.

 

Correct, and I posted almost exactly this on page 6. When you are standing there on the tee its not that much help to you. However, it will be (1) a massive help to you in deciding what to work on to get better and (2) to give you a realistic look at your golf game, which very very few golfers actually have. For example, you say you "rarely" hit it in the middle of the face. Really? I doubt that is actually true. I don't thinkthe vast majority of your shots are toe and heel rockets. Its overhwelmingly likely your miss is not toe/heel 80% of the time. Why are you missing? Where? This is important information, not useless at all to any cap, for a variety of reasons.

 

Even 20 caps have overwhelming tendencies (read. the. book.). For example, you almost certainly have a predominate miss 65% of the time (you don't know what it is, but you have it, and you could play away from it).

 

PSG, for someone who is ultra sensitive about being "called out" and "attacked", calling someone delusional isn't really walking the walk. You shouldnt attack anyone here if you don't like that yourself.

 

You can have all the stats in the world you want, but keep hitting it 320 into deep rough and into the woods and the guy who hits the 3 wood off the tee but is in the fairway will beat you every time. its golf, not statistics 101.

 

"Accuracy is how you strike the ball not where your ball lands" - hilarious.....

 

Is a marksmen not accurate based on where his bullet hits the target? Oh, its how he pulls the trigger.....

 

That being said, fitters should absolutely take into account a shorter shaft length for their players who have a hard time hitting a 45" length driver.

 

I'm not sensitive at all. I calmly responded to each post. Attack all you want. Its an internet forum, not a firefight. Its pretty obvious at this point your goal isn't to understand what I'm saying (you don't) or to expand your mind or to be open to these ideas. No worries, to each his own.

but you are calling people names after you said it wasn't right for me to call u out. its once again a contradiction on your side.

 

You have taken this post in a direction of your own and swayed so far off point, im not sure you know where this started. Your original theory is based on one shot on the direct same line between 2 different clubs. Ive said all along, your base theory is all wrong because you don't hit the 2 clubs exactly the same...so anything that follows is wrong as well. In case you forgot, here is the original post.

 

I see a lot of members talk about using a 3 wood off the tee because the driver isn't working.......with todays technology and "forgiveness", you would think drivers are much easier to hit than years past. The huge 460cc heads are supposed to inspire confidence (I hate them personally), but its funny how a smaller head 3W with a shorter shaft provides that confidence to a lot of amateur players.....maybe club fitting should be geared towards shaft length along with the other fitting parameters. I know it is somewhat, but what are your thoughts? It seems a lot of people like the 3w off the tee because it flies straight for them....but the heads are tiny compared to todays drivers and I know the shafts are shorter.....maybe that's the key to good fitting. Sure you lose some yardage, but if it flies down the middle and you are confident with the club, hitting it 240 down the middle instead of 260 into the rough may save you 5 strokes a loop.

 

What are your thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hitting it 240 down the middle instead of 260 into the rough may save you 5 strokes a loop.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

I think this thread has done a good job of exploring the validity of this claim.

 

I, for one, am interested in knowing whether or not being potentially 8% closer to the hole but in the rough is actually costing me 5 strokes a round. I doubt it is, but wouldn't it be neat to measure and know for sure...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

*For me*, club selection off the tee depends on how far I want to hit the ball to give me the best possible chance at a GIR.

 

What club would you hit off this tee? Assuming I'm playing from the blues, I'm going to hit my 230 club, even though it leaves me with a 170 approach. Trying to carry the fairway bunkers is too risky for me, because the fairway gets extremely narrow and crowned, so if I miss, not only will I be in the rough, but the ball is going to be a foot above/below my feet.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hitting it 240 down the middle instead of 260 into the rough may save you 5 strokes a loop.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

I think this thread has done a good job of exploring the validity of this claim.

 

I, for one, am interested in knowing whether or not being potentially 8% closer to the hole but in the rough is actually costing me 5 strokes a round. I doubt it is, but wouldn't it be neat to measure and know for sure...?

yea. I think it depends on the type of rough of course, but we referenced Erin Hills a lot here.....if its that rough, PSG's theory goes in the trash can as we stated many times.....that rough would cost you 10 shots a side!! a 3 wood to the fairway?......glorious
Link to post
Share on other sites

*For me*, club selection off the tee depends on how far I want to hit the ball to give me the best possible chance at a GIR.

 

What club would you hit off this tee? Assuming I'm playing from the blues, I'm going to hit my 230 club, even though it leaves me with a 170 approach. Trying to carry the fairway bunkers is too risky for me, because the fairway gets extremely narrow and crowned, so if I miss, not only will I be in the rough, but the ball is going to be a foot above/below my feet.

 

 

 

This thread gets very bogged down in specific examples like this, but thank you for sharing your strategy. It probably doesn't hurt as much going 170 into that green (for some guys, 170 is a long iron) because there is plenty of room short right to miss. Strategy on this hole is not only dictated by the landing areas off the tee, but also the accessibility of the green.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hitting it 240 down the middle instead of 260 into the rough may save you 5 strokes a loop.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

I think this thread has done a good job of exploring the validity of this claim.

 

I, for one, am interested in knowing whether or not being potentially 8% closer to the hole but in the rough is actually costing me 5 strokes a round. I doubt it is, but wouldn't it be neat to measure and know for sure...?

yea. I think it depends on the type of rough of course, but we referenced Erin Hills a lot here.....if its that rough, PSG's theory goes in the trash can as we stated many times.....that rough would cost you 10 shots a side!! a 3 wood to the fairway?......glorious

 

Serious question as I wade into the thread (I've been lurking and reading it). The bolded part- are you literally talking about me? Or "you" as in amateurs, or "you" as in the field playing the US Open, or "you" as in JJ Watt who shot 1XX there? It makes a big difference in what point you're trying to convey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hitting it 240 down the middle instead of 260 into the rough may save you 5 strokes a loop.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

I think this thread has done a good job of exploring the validity of this claim.

 

I, for one, am interested in knowing whether or not being potentially 8% closer to the hole but in the rough is actually costing me 5 strokes a round. I doubt it is, but wouldn't it be neat to measure and know for sure...?

yea. I think it depends on the type of rough of course, but we referenced Erin Hills a lot here.....if its that rough, PSG's theory goes in the trash can as we stated many times.....that rough would cost you 10 shots a side!! a 3 wood to the fairway?......glorious

 

Serious question as I wade into the thread (I've been lurking and reading it). The bolded part- are you literally talking about me? Or "you" as in amateurs, or "you" as in the field playing the US Open, or "you" as in JJ Watt who shot 1XX there? It makes a big difference in what point you're trying to convey.

"YOU" as in amateurs, which the thread was talking about until PSG started talking PGA pros.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...