Anybody use 17 / 21 hybrid combo and dump fairway woods??

[DaveGoodrich]

Every one of these “low-lofted hybrid vs. 3-wood” threads ends with the same basic points being made:

1. Some folks say they hit the hybrid better, and they believe that the few extra yards they might get out of a 3-wood aren’t worth the risk of disastrous 3-wood shots
   
2. Pinestreetgolf (psg) tells those folks that “statistics say” that they actually don’t hit their 3-wood that bad (or perhaps that they don’t hit a hybrid as well as they think).
   
3. Since “Every Shot Counts” tells us that “closer is better,” psg tells us we should hit our 3-wood (because it is longer, it should get us closer to the hole, resulting in lower scores in the long run).
   

 

Point #2 may be true, on average, but it is no real help. We all have to make the best judgement we can, and most of us are not willing to collect detailed stats while we play. Even if we were willing, it would take many, many rounds to gather enough data to distinguish, in a statistically significant way, whether playing a 3-wood or 2-hybrid results in lower scores in the long run. Most of us just don’t take that many shots per round with these clubs.

 

As for Point #3, the “strokes gained” data does indeed show that “closer is better.” But the data does not address differences in possible outcomes using different strategies from a given distance. So if I have 240 to the green on a Par 5, the data doesn’t necessarily say whether it’s better to hit a 190 yard hybrid/50 yard wedge, or a 210 yard 3-wood/30 yard wedge (yes, I am a short hitter). If I execute both layups effectively, the latter strategy is better, because 30 yards is better than 50 yards. But that “if" is what this entire discussion hinges on. Am I taking too big a risk trying to get those extra 20 yards? It obviously depends on how well the individual golfer hits the various shots being considered in these scenarios.

 

Everyone needs to evaluate for themselves whether a 3-wood or low-lofted hybrid is their best bet. PSG is correct is saying that we should look as objectively as we can at our actual shot outcomes when deciding which way to go. But we should stop pretending that aggregated strokes-gained data is going to objectively answer the question for individuals.

[BForrester]

I use a 17 and 21 combo...and makes all the help in the world for me. For the short par 4's, long par 5's, I use the 17 and know I will be long and straight. I'm sure I could squeeze out a few more yards from a 3 wood, but no chance it will be as accurate and forgiving.

 

This thinking is why i post in these threads. Why do you assume shorter and straighter = better score?

 

Shouldn't you evaluate the clubs based on which produces the lower scores, not which produces the prettiest shots?

 

I'd rather have #3 on a par 5 be a chip/pitch from 20 yards than a 30 yard pitch from the heather because I hooked the holy hell out of that 3w.

[pinestreetgolf]

Every one of these “low-lofted hybrid vs. 3-wood” threads ends with the same basic points being made:

1. Some folks say they hit the hybrid better, and they believe that the few extra yards they might get out of a 3-wood aren’t worth the risk of disastrous 3-wood shots
   
2. Pinestreetgolf (psg) tells those folks that “statistics say” that they actually don’t hit their 3-wood that bad (or perhaps that they don’t hit a hybrid as well as they think).
   
3. Since “Every Shot Counts” tells us that “closer is better,” psg tells us we should hit our 3-wood (because it is longer, it should get us closer to the hole, resulting in lower scores in the long run).
   

 

Point #2 may be true, on average, but it is no real help. We all have to make the best judgement we can, and most of us are not willing to collect detailed stats while we play. Even if we were willing, it would take many, many rounds to gather enough data to distinguish, in a statistically significant way, whether playing a 3-wood or 2-hybrid results in lower scores in the long run. Most of us just don’t take that many shots per round with these clubs.

 

As for Point #3, the “strokes gained” data does indeed show that “closer is better.” But the data does not address differences in possible outcomes using different strategies from a given distance. So if I have 240 to the green on a Par 5, the data doesn’t necessarily say whether it’s better to hit a 190 yard hybrid/50 yard wedge, or a 210 yard 3-wood/30 yard wedge (yes, I am a short hitter). If I execute both layups effectively, the latter strategy is better, because 30 yards is better than 50 yards. But that “if" is what this entire discussion hinges on. Am I taking too big a risk trying to get those extra 20 yards? It obviously depends on how well the individual golfer hits the various shots being considered in these scenarios.

 

Everyone needs to evaluate for themselves whether a 3-wood or low-lofted hybrid is their best bet. PSG is correct is saying that we should look as objectively as we can at our actual shot outcomes when deciding which way to go. But we should stop pretending that aggregated strokes-gained data is going to objectively answer the question for individuals.

 

Very close, actually. Two things to point out:

 

1. Were not talking about a little statistical difference. We’re talking like 97% / 3%.

 

2. Every golfer should study their own game to make this decision, as you correctly point out. However, I simply think that if you aren’t going to keep your own stats you should just assume you are typical, because you almost certainly are, regardless of what your non-quantified memories tell you.

 

So of course it comes down to the individual - this is Golf - but we are, as a whole, not that unique in terms of this area of the game. But most of these people don't actually track the score over a meaningful period of time. They see a prettier, more solid shot (of course, its shorter with more loft) and equate that to a lower score for some reason, which is silly. If you measure it and you’re in the group of exceptions, more power to you!

[kulreign50]

I bought the f7 set it at 21.5 , best hybrid I ever hit. Naturally I then purchased the 17 degree, same shaft specs etc. I have trouble elevating it and struggle with consistency. So I took that out and added a PING G400 5 wood, and that works well for my swing.

[DaveGoodrich]

Very close, actually. Two things to point out: 1. Were not talking about a little statistical difference. We’re talking like 97% / 3%. 2. Every golfer should study their own game to make this decision, as you correctly point out. However, I simply think that if you aren’t going to keep your own stats you should just assume you are typical, because you almost certainly are, regardless of what your non-quantified memories tell you. So of course it comes down to the individual - this is Golf - but we are, as a whole, not that unique in terms of this area of the game. But most of these people don't actually track the score over a meaningful period of time. They see a prettier, more solid shot (of course, its shorter with more loft) and equate that to a lower score for some reason, which is silly. If you measure it and you’re in the group of exceptions, more power to you!

 

What do you mean by "97% / 3%? 97% of players should choose a 3 wood vs. a 2 Hybrid? How did you tease that number out of Broadies data?

 

And how do you suppose an average recreational golfer should collect stats to make a rational "data-based" decision on this particular issue? Are we supposed to play several hundred rounds, while changing nothing in our bags but our 3-wood/2-hybrid, and compare average score? Even that wouldn't necessarily lead to meaningful results, because it would be almost impossible to control for weather, changing turf conditions, course management decisions, etc. I suppose you could do an elaborate Trackman study to determine your dispersion patterns with each club, and then overlay them on the golf courses you play, from the locations you typically hit that club from, and run thousands of computer simulations to estimate the probability distribution of various outcomes. Expecting this decision to be made based on keeping personal statistics, is just not reasonable.

 

Your answer to this problem is to say that we should consider ourselves to be "the typical golfer" and do what Broadie tells us to do, which is to always hit it as close to the hole as possible unless you would be incurring significant risk (penalty strokes, obstructed access to the green, etc.). This does provide a rational basis for answering the question of "what club should I hit from here, now?" But that is not all that is needed to decide which clubs to bring to the course, and which clubs to leave home.

 

That is a much more complicated question, for which the strokes-gained data sets can only provide a part of the answer. What does the individual use the 2nd club for (hitting into greens in 2 on Par 5s, long layups on unreachable Par 5s, off the tee for distance reasons, off the tee for shot-shape reasons, off the tee for long Par 3s)?

 

And what is the opportunity cost of carrying a club that is used rarely, and hit pretty poorly much of the time (and consequently, not carrying some other club that you might be able to do something useful with)? I know, as a shorter hitter, by using a "shorter" 2nd club, I can close up my gaps in the 150 - 200 yard range, which includes many Par 3s and the longer Par 4 approaches for me. That gives me better odds on more holes than I could get by being 15 yards closer on a couple of Par 5 layups per round. I could also close up those gaps by playing a 52/58 wedge setup vs. a 50/54/58 setup. I'm experimenting with that now so I see if I can carry a 3-wood and a 17/21 hybrid combo. But that is the topic of another thread.

[BearQ]

Ditching fairway woods can work for some. But if you are a competitive player at scratch or better...has to be something to overwhelming majority of guys carrying 3/4 wood.

 

I had a 5 year stretch where I could not hit 3w to save my life. I finally find my unicorn 3w, got the specs just right and then spent a huge amount of time working at it. Now the 3w spot is a weapon and my scores/game improved.

 

The bandaid fix of using my 17* hybrid, left a giant gap from driver and robbed me of the tee ball shotmaking I could have had with 3W.

 

I know there are 15* hybrid options out there now too, and if you can get the distance to fill your gaps, kudos to you. Personally ditching the 3w was a bandaid fix. The 3w options now have so much heat + with the smaller head you can work the ball easier/better than a driver. I think its an absolutely crucial spot in the bag.

 

Depends on your situation like I said! I wouldn't give up hope on finding the unicorn 3w though.

[pinestreetgolf]

What do you mean by "97% / 3%? 97% of players should choose a 3 wood vs. a 2 Hybrid? How did you tease that number out of Broadies data?

 

No, 97% of players are better from 30 than 50. I have no idea what percent of players should play what, because as you say, its the shot plus the shot, not just the layup shot.

 

And how do you suppose an average recreational golfer should collect stats to make a rational "data-based" decision on this particular issue? Are we supposed to play several hundred rounds, while changing nothing in our bags but our 3-wood/2-hybrid, and compare average score? Even that wouldn't necessarily lead to meaningful results, because it would be almost impossible to control for weather, changing turf conditions, course management decisions, etc. I suppose you could do an elaborate Trackman study to determine your dispersion patterns with each club, and then overlay them on the golf courses you play, from the locations you typically hit that club from, and run thousands of computer simulations to estimate the probability distribution of various outcomes. Expecting this decision to be made based on keeping personal statistics, is just not reasonable.

 

I don't agree with you. I play about four times a week, and over about three years I have some pretty useful data. Nothing is perfect. Any statistical sample has two error issues - sample size and measurement precision. But its better than nothing.

 

Your answer to this problem is to say that we should consider ourselves to be "the typical golfer" and do what Broadie tells us to do, which is to always hit it as close to the hole as possible unless you would be incurring significant risk (penalty strokes, obstructed access to the green, etc.). This does provide a rational basis for answering the question of "what club should I hit from here, now?" But that is not all that is needed to decide which clubs to bring to the course, and which clubs to leave home.

 

Not really. I generally disagree with two things the most in these threads:

 

1. Boolean, all-or-none analysis. "i can't hit a 3 wood", "i haven't hit a good 3 wood in 10 years", "enjoy being OB", "you can't hit any wedge from the lake..." etc... Its not how golf is played, but its how our minds think.

2. Caring about "good strikes" or "pretty shots" instead of where the ball comes to rest. You have to actually hit a ball to see a "good strike", so you have enough data to reach that conclusion. But nobody ever talks about where they end up. Its never "yeah, most of the time I hit it and I get within 30 yards of my target and 50 yards back" its always "what a better strike!" as if that matters. It doesn't.

 

And what is the opportunity cost of carrying a club that is used rarely, and hit pretty poorly much of the time (and consequently, not carrying some other club that you might be able to do something useful with)? I know, as a shorter hitter, by using a "shorter" 2nd club, I can close up my gaps in the 150 - 200 yard range, which includes many Par 3s and the longer Par 4 approaches for me. That gives me better odds on more holes than I could get by being 15 yards closer on a couple of Par 5 layups per round. I could also close up those gaps by playing a 52/58 wedge setup vs. a 50/54/58 setup. I'm experimenting with that now so I see if I can carry a 3-wood and a 17/21 hybrid combo. But that is the topic of another thread.

 

Do I think Broadie's study is correct? Yes. But there have been studies that conclusively show golfers can't remember anything. I mean, literally nothing. We come up with these narratives about how we "Can do" this and "can't do" that and its literally based on nothing, for the most part. It doesn't have to be "stats" and its not that literal, but I think its invaluable to jot down notes about what you actually do with the clubs your using in your bag.

 

I think there is a significant component to people who play hybrids instead of 3 woods that they don't care about the score even though they say they do, they jut don't like being embarrassed by hitting bad 3 woods (even though, over time, they'd probably score better that way). But I could be wrong.

[DaveGoodrich]

What do you mean by "97% / 3%? 97% of players should choose a 3 wood vs. a 2 Hybrid? How did you tease that number out of Broadies data?

No, 97% of players are better from 30 than 50. I have no idea what percent of players should play what, because as you say, its the shot plus the shot, not just the layup shot.

And how do you suppose an average recreational golfer should collect stats to make a rational "data-based" decision on this particular issue? Are we supposed to play several hundred rounds, while changing nothing in our bags but our 3-wood/2-hybrid, and compare average score? Even that wouldn't necessarily lead to meaningful results, because it would be almost impossible to control for weather, changing turf conditions, course management decisions, etc. I suppose you could do an elaborate Trackman study to determine your dispersion patterns with each club, and then overlay them on the golf courses you play, from the locations you typically hit that club from, and run thousands of computer simulations to estimate the probability distribution of various outcomes. Expecting this decision to be made based on keeping personal statistics, is just not reasonable.

I don't agree with you. I play about four times a week, and over about three years I have some pretty useful data. Nothing is perfect. Any statistical sample has two error issues - sample size and measurement precision. But its better than nothing.

Your answer to this problem is to say that we should consider ourselves to be "the typical golfer" and do what Broadie tells us to do, which is to always hit it as close to the hole as possible unless you would be incurring significant risk (penalty strokes, obstructed access to the green, etc.). This does provide a rational basis for answering the question of "what club should I hit from here, now?" But that is not all that is needed to decide which clubs to bring to the course, and which clubs to leave home.

Not really. I generally disagree with two things the most in these threads: 1. Boolean, all-or-none analysis. "i can't hit a 3 wood", "i haven't hit a good 3 wood in 10 years", "enjoy being OB", "you can't hit any wedge from the lake..." etc... Its not how golf is played, but its how our minds think. 2. Caring about "good strikes" or "pretty shots" instead of where the ball comes to rest. You have to actually hit a ball to see a "good strike", so you have enough data to reach that conclusion. But nobody ever talks about where they end up. Its never "yeah, most of the time I hit it and I get within 30 yards of my target and 50 yards back" its always "what a better strike!" as if that matters. It doesn't.

And what is the opportunity cost of carrying a club that is used rarely, and hit pretty poorly much of the time (and consequently, not carrying some other club that you might be able to do something useful with)? I know, as a shorter hitter, by using a "shorter" 2nd club, I can close up my gaps in the 150 - 200 yard range, which includes many Par 3s and the longer Par 4 approaches for me. That gives me better odds on more holes than I could get by being 15 yards closer on a couple of Par 5 layups per round. I could also close up those gaps by playing a 52/58 wedge setup vs. a 50/54/58 setup. I'm experimenting with that now so I see if I can carry a 3-wood and a 17/21 hybrid combo. But that is the topic of another thread.

Do I think Broadie's study is correct? Yes. But there have been studies that conclusively show golfers can't remember anything. I mean, literally nothing. We come up with these narratives about how we "Can do" this and "can't do" that and its literally based on nothing, for the most part. It doesn't have to be "stats" and its not that literal, but I think its invaluable to jot down notes about what you actually do with the clubs your using in your bag. I think there is a significant component to people who play hybrids instead of 3 woods that they don't care about the score even though they say they do, they jut don't like being embarrassed by hitting bad 3 woods (even though, over time, they'd probably score better that way). But I could be wrong.

 

Having good notes, or GameGolf-like data about actual shot outcomes with each club would certainly be better than simply "remembering," especially if you can build a data set as large as you have been able to do. So what exactly would you look at in all of the data you have collected to decide whether to carry a 3W or a 2H? Showing us how exactly this should be done would be better than just telling us, repeatedly, that if we think we are better off with a hybrid vs. a 3-wood, then we are probably foolish, and that we must not really care about our score.

 

I think we agree, essentially entirely, about Broadie's main conclusions. But your entire argument regarding this particular (3W vs. 2H) issue is essentially that point about how we "can't remember anything" about our games unless we keep stats or systematic notes. I definitely accept that this is a factor, but I suspect there is a large amount of variability in our "understanding" of our games, and in general, I suspect you are overstating how bad we are at this. I would appreciate it if you could please point me to the studies that show this "conclusively." I do think there is a fairly strong correlation between the quality of the strike and the resulting proximity to the target, so I don't think using the strike quality as a consideration when choosing what clubs to play is so unreasonable. Is it as good as lots of "hard data?" Obviously not, but its not nothing. Also, I think it is fairly insulting for you to say that we care more about being embarrassed by poor shots than we do about scoring. I don't think you have any better insight into our particular psychologies than you do about our particular golf games, so you really shouldn't be generalizing about either.

[pinestreetgolf]

Having good notes, or GameGolf-like data about actual shot outcomes with each club would certainly be better than simply "remembering," especially if you can build a data set as large as you have been able to do. So what exactly would you look at in all of the data you have collected to decide whether to carry a 3W or a 2H? Showing us how exactly this should be done would be better than just telling us, repeatedly, that if we think we are better off with a hybrid vs. a 3-wood, then we are probably foolish, and that we must not really care about our score.

 

I don't disagree with the conclusion, I disagree with the method. You've brought that up a few times now. People say nonsensical things like "I can't hit a 3 wood" and "if i play 3 wood, i top it four times a round as a 10 cap", which is ridiculous. I don't think anyone is "probably foolish" for choosing a 2 hybrid instead of a 3 wood, I think people are probably foolish for conducting these thought experiments where they rely on their memory to tell them how they've hit various clubs over the years. It has a huge amount of recency bias and a huge amount of bias toward shots that carry emotion with them, positive or negative. I have no idea if people care about their score or not, but if they arn't willing to do something as rudimentary as write down little notes about their games in the moment so they can have something to refer to later then they probably don't care much about score, because it takes two seconds.

 

Golf has a massive amount of athletic memory decay. A study at Brown (I will try to dig it up for you, I posted it in a thread like this one that you complain I post in) found that the average golfer mis-remembers about 40% of his shots *right after the round* is over.

 

I think we agree, essentially entirely, about Broadie's main conclusions. But your entire argument regarding this particular (3W vs. 2H) issue is essentially that point about how we "can't remember anything" about our games unless we keep stats or systematic notes. I definitely accept that this is a factor, but I suspect there is a large amount of variability in our "understanding" of our games, and in general, I suspect you are overstating how bad we are at this. I would appreciate it if you could please point me to the studies that show this "conclusively." I do think there is a fairly strong correlation between the quality of the strike and the resulting proximity to the target, so I don't think using the strike quality as a consideration when choosing what clubs to play is so unreasonable. Is it as good as lots of "hard data?" Obviously not, but its not nothing. Also, I think it is fairly insulting for you to say that we care more about being embarrassed by poor shots than we do about scoring. I don't think you have any better insight into our particular psychologies than you do about our particular golf games, so you really shouldn't be generalizing about either.

 

Nothing is conclusive, just probable. You could conclude the Warriors and Rockets arn't really the best teams in the NBA, the season just isn't long enough. We cannot hope to ever understand everything to that degree of precision, but good isn't the enemy of perfect, and its always good to get as much data as you can.

 

As far as the strike goes, I would argue that if you can't reach your optimal target the strike doesn't matter much. If i hit my 7 iron 150, and i'm 150 out, a perfect strike with a pitching wedge isn't going to have "a fairly strong correlation between the strike and the proximity to the target" - your going to be way short. Similarly, an optimal strike with a shorter club in the hybrid/wood discussion is silly if the optimal target is longer. Now, if that player is *Actually longer* with the hybrid OR if the shorter target is more optimal, then fine. But generally that will not be the case.

 

I'm sorry you feel insulted. I'm not sure why telling someone who doesn't bother to study their own game that they arn't doing everything they can for their score is insulting, but if it is, then i suppose its insulting. "Embarassing" was probably a bad word. What i meant is that people would rather feel the perfect strike and see the ball soaring through the air than score .2 strokes over time better by hitting a longer club worse. If that's an insult, so be it.

 

I'll try to dig up that study tomorrow, its in one of the threads that we've had this discussion in.

[twgolf78]

i keep thinking I want to to this but really should learn how to hit a fairway wood properly...

[Chuck905]

I’ve went thru a similar experience it only a 4 wood was my band aid for the 3 wood fix.

 

I took lessons, gone thru a swing and equipment over haul but it was worth it.

 

The 3 wood is one of the easiest clubs to hit. I Actually my 3 wood as my regular set-up vs my 16* Utility iron.

 

Also wanted to mentioned, my scores has come down and the game is way more fun with a 3 wood.

 

The eagles and birdies right all the wrongs.

 

 

Ditching fairway woods can work for some. But if you are a competitive player at scratch or better...has to be something to overwhelming majority of guys carrying 3/4 wood.

 

I had a 5 year stretch where I could not hit 3w to save my life. I finally find my unicorn 3w, got the specs just right and then spent a huge amount of time working at it. Now the 3w spot is a weapon and my scores/game improved.

 

The bandaid fix of using my 17* hybrid, left a giant gap from driver and robbed me of the tee ball shotmaking I could have had with 3W.

 

I know there are 15* hybrid options out there now too, and if you can get the distance to fill your gaps, kudos to you. Personally ditching the 3w was a bandaid fix. The 3w options now have so much heat + with the smaller head you can work the ball easier/better than a driver. I think its an absolutely crucial spot in the bag.

 

Depends on your situation like I said! I wouldn't give up hope on finding the unicorn 3w though.

[Donno]

I haven't hit a good fairway shot in 10 years. Yet I keep a 3 wood or 4 wood in the bag that matches my driver - it's OCD.

 

I finally find the newer hybrids much better than the older ones and I'm thinking about going 17 / 21 hybrids (G400 or M1 or cobra...)

 

And ditch fairway woods all together and play 4-P 52 56 60.

 

This would tighten up my low gaps and really I can hit a 17 or 19 hybrid almost as far as fairway wood but much cleaner....

 

 

anyone else?

 

How many times to you hit a 2 iron during a round? Unless that's your "driver" club, focusing on low-lofted clubs is like worrying about 3% of your shots. I'd practice the short-game like no tomorrow.

[pinestreetgolf]

I haven't hit a good fairway shot in 10 years. Yet I keep a 3 wood or 4 wood in the bag that matches my driver - it's OCD.

 

I finally find the newer hybrids much better than the older ones and I'm thinking about going 17 / 21 hybrids (G400 or M1 or cobra...)

 

And ditch fairway woods all together and play 4-P 52 56 60.

 

This would tighten up my low gaps and really I can hit a 17 or 19 hybrid almost as far as fairway wood but much cleaner....

 

 

anyone else?

 

How many times to you hit a 2 iron during a round? Unless that's your "driver" club, focusing on low-lofted clubs is like worrying about 3% of your shots. I'd practice the short-game like no tomorrow.

 

The average scratch player hits about ten and a half greens a round, meaning he has the chance to get up and down seven and a half times a round. If he can get as good as a PGA tour player, he'll save par 64% of the time, or roughly 3.75 strokes per round. Now think about how much you have to practice short game to get as good as a tour pro.

 

The most important skill in golf is hitting greens. You should absolutely make sure you can hack it on the green in the short game and two putt, but the best way to lower your handicap fast is irons, then driver, then short game. Short game is a route to improvement for sure, but it is no match for hitting more greens.

 

IMO, of course.

[Donno]

Ugh, this again. "Hey guys, struggling with my six iron. Considering pulling it for a seven iron. It goes shorter, but I can hit it better. Thoughts?"

 

*massive eye roll*

 

It doesn't matter how good you hit the club. Build your bag for the shots you need on the course not so they look pretty while you come up 15 yards short. If your course allows for a 17 hybrid into the par 5s, play it. If not, play a 3 wood.

 

You don't play an iron set that only has the irons your good at hitting in it, you play an iron set that has solid gapping. You don't play woods that only has the clubs you are good at hitting in it, you play a wood set that has solid gapping.

 

I haven't hit a good fairway shot in 10 years.

 

Right, so the guy who was asking us in another thread which set of incredibly hard to hit blades to get hasn't hit a good fairway shot in a decade. OK.

 

SO TRUE! These guys obsess over clubs when their swing is 99.99999% of the problem.

[Donno]

I haven't hit a good fairway shot in 10 years. Yet I keep a 3 wood or 4 wood in the bag that matches my driver - it's OCD.

 

I finally find the newer hybrids much better than the older ones and I'm thinking about going 17 / 21 hybrids (G400 or M1 or cobra...)

 

And ditch fairway woods all together and play 4-P 52 56 60.

 

This would tighten up my low gaps and really I can hit a 17 or 19 hybrid almost as far as fairway wood but much cleaner....

 

 

anyone else?

 

How many times to you hit a 2 iron during a round? Unless that's your "driver" club, focusing on low-lofted clubs is like worrying about 3% of your shots. I'd practice the short-game like no tomorrow.

 

The average scratch player hits about ten and a half greens a round, meaning he has the chance to get up and down seven and a half times a round. If he can get as good as a PGA tour player, he'll save par 64% of the time, or roughly 3.75 strokes per round. Now think about how much you have to practice short game to get as good as a tour pro.

 

The most important skill in golf is hitting greens. You should absolutely make sure you can hack it on the green in the short game and two putt, but the best way to lower your handicap fast is irons, then driver, then short game. Short game is a route to improvement for sure, but it is no match for hitting more greens.

 

IMO, of course.

 

Not sure about that...but it's your opinion. Driver is the setup to every hole. It makes a giant difference in approach shots....or....from 180 vs. 130.

[Donno]

Every one of these “low-lofted hybrid vs. 3-wood” threads ends with the same basic points being made:

1. Some folks say they hit the hybrid better, and they believe that the few extra yards they might get out of a 3-wood aren’t worth the risk of disastrous 3-wood shots
   
2. Pinestreetgolf (psg) tells those folks that “statistics say” that they actually don’t hit their 3-wood that bad (or perhaps that they don’t hit a hybrid as well as they think).
   
3. Since “Every Shot Counts” tells us that “closer is better,” psg tells us we should hit our 3-wood (because it is longer, it should get us closer to the hole, resulting in lower scores in the long run).
   

 

Point #2 may be true, on average, but it is no real help. We all have to make the best judgement we can, and most of us are not willing to collect detailed stats while we play. Even if we were willing, it would take many, many rounds to gather enough data to distinguish, in a statistically significant way, whether playing a 3-wood or 2-hybrid results in lower scores in the long run. Most of us just don’t take that many shots per round with these clubs.

 

As for Point #3, the “strokes gained” data does indeed show that “closer is better.” But the data does not address differences in possible outcomes using different strategies from a given distance. So if I have 240 to the green on a Par 5, the data doesn’t necessarily say whether it’s better to hit a 190 yard hybrid/50 yard wedge, or a 210 yard 3-wood/30 yard wedge (yes, I am a short hitter). If I execute both layups effectively, the latter strategy is better, because 30 yards is better than 50 yards. But that “if" is what this entire discussion hinges on. Am I taking too big a risk trying to get those extra 20 yards? It obviously depends on how well the individual golfer hits the various shots being considered in these scenarios.

 

Everyone needs to evaluate for themselves whether a 3-wood or low-lofted hybrid is their best bet. PSG is correct is saying that we should look as objectively as we can at our actual shot outcomes when deciding which way to go. But we should stop pretending that aggregated strokes-gained data is going to objectively answer the question for individuals.

 

Course management. All the talk about hitting some hybrid or 3W 20 yards longer is nonsense. Layup to a distance for a comfortable 3rd shot...most likely about 100 - 110 yards to allow a fuller swing...even on par 4's if the 2nd shot will likely end in disaster. Practicing wedge play is an easier way to cut strokes.

[matchavez]

Every one of these “low-lofted hybrid vs. 3-wood” threads ends with the same basic points being made:

1. Some folks say they hit the hybrid better, and they believe that the few extra yards they might get out of a 3-wood aren’t worth the risk of disastrous 3-wood shots
   
2. Pinestreetgolf (psg) tells those folks that “statistics say” that they actually don’t hit their 3-wood that bad (or perhaps that they don’t hit a hybrid as well as they think).
   
3. Since “Every Shot Counts” tells us that “closer is better,” psg tells us we should hit our 3-wood (because it is longer, it should get us closer to the hole, resulting in lower scores in the long run).
   

 

Point #2 may be true, on average, but it is no real help. We all have to make the best judgement we can, and most of us are not willing to collect detailed stats while we play. Even if we were willing, it would take many, many rounds to gather enough data to distinguish, in a statistically significant way, whether playing a 3-wood or 2-hybrid results in lower scores in the long run. Most of us just don’t take that many shots per round with these clubs.

 

As for Point #3, the “strokes gained” data does indeed show that “closer is better.” But the data does not address differences in possible outcomes using different strategies from a given distance. So if I have 240 to the green on a Par 5, the data doesn’t necessarily say whether it’s better to hit a 190 yard hybrid/50 yard wedge, or a 210 yard 3-wood/30 yard wedge (yes, I am a short hitter). If I execute both layups effectively, the latter strategy is better, because 30 yards is better than 50 yards. But that “if" is what this entire discussion hinges on. Am I taking too big a risk trying to get those extra 20 yards? It obviously depends on how well the individual golfer hits the various shots being considered in these scenarios.

 

Everyone needs to evaluate for themselves whether a 3-wood or low-lofted hybrid is their best bet. PSG is correct is saying that we should look as objectively as we can at our actual shot outcomes when deciding which way to go. But we should stop pretending that aggregated strokes-gained data is going to objectively answer the question for individuals.

 

Course management. All the talk about hitting some hybrid or 3W 20 yards longer is nonsense. Layup to a distance for a comfortable 3rd shot...most likely about 100 - 110 yards to allow a fuller swing...even on par 4's if the 2nd shot will likely end in disaster. Practicing wedge play is an easier way to cut strokes.

 

That's kinda funny. The whole point is that we've concluded that barring a penalty hazard in the area, it's better to be closer. I'll get on PSG's bad side when I say I don't agree with him on the "everyone should hit 3-wood" (paraphrasing), but the "lay up to a distance" is also just as wrong. You don't do that, and no one is going to impeach those conclusions.

 

If you want to lay up to a number personally, fine. But don't pass that off as gospel in the same way Pine gets ripped for the 3-wood gospel.

[evoviiiyou]

Every one of these “low-lofted hybrid vs. 3-wood” threads ends with the same basic points being made:

1. Some folks say they hit the hybrid better, and they believe that the few extra yards they might get out of a 3-wood aren’t worth the risk of disastrous 3-wood shots
   
2. Pinestreetgolf (psg) tells those folks that “statistics say” that they actually don’t hit their 3-wood that bad (or perhaps that they don’t hit a hybrid as well as they think).
   
3. Since “Every Shot Counts” tells us that “closer is better,” psg tells us we should hit our 3-wood (because it is longer, it should get us closer to the hole, resulting in lower scores in the long run).
   

 

Point #2 may be true, on average, but it is no real help. We all have to make the best judgement we can, and most of us are not willing to collect detailed stats while we play. Even if we were willing, it would take many, many rounds to gather enough data to distinguish, in a statistically significant way, whether playing a 3-wood or 2-hybrid results in lower scores in the long run. Most of us just don’t take that many shots per round with these clubs.

 

As for Point #3, the “strokes gained” data does indeed show that “closer is better.” But the data does not address differences in possible outcomes using different strategies from a given distance. So if I have 240 to the green on a Par 5, the data doesn’t necessarily say whether it’s better to hit a 190 yard hybrid/50 yard wedge, or a 210 yard 3-wood/30 yard wedge (yes, I am a short hitter). If I execute both layups effectively, the latter strategy is better, because 30 yards is better than 50 yards. But that “if" is what this entire discussion hinges on. Am I taking too big a risk trying to get those extra 20 yards? It obviously depends on how well the individual golfer hits the various shots being considered in these scenarios.

 

Everyone needs to evaluate for themselves whether a 3-wood or low-lofted hybrid is their best bet. PSG is correct is saying that we should look as objectively as we can at our actual shot outcomes when deciding which way to go. But we should stop pretending that aggregated strokes-gained data is going to objectively answer the question for individuals.

 

Course management. All the talk about hitting some hybrid or 3W 20 yards longer is nonsense. Layup to a distance for a comfortable 3rd shot...most likely about 100 - 110 yards to allow a fuller swing...even on par 4's if the 2nd shot will likely end in disaster. Practicing wedge play is an easier way to cut strokes.

 

This is a great point and logic. In my current bag set up traveling with me to Palm Springs, I actually ditched my 3wood and top of bag goes Driver, 2i, 4i...because of how tempted I always get to hit the shot of my life cause I’m due with the 3w. With the 2i as really a tee ball club, that leaves me with hitting 4i or a proper layup to 115-120 to hit gap wedge. Let’s see if it helps the scores and handy. Hit em strait boys!

[Donno]

I haven't hit a good fairway shot in 10 years. Yet I keep a 3 wood or 4 wood in the bag that matches my driver - it's OCD.

 

I finally find the newer hybrids much better than the older ones and I'm thinking about going 17 / 21 hybrids (G400 or M1 or cobra...)

 

And ditch fairway woods all together and play 4-P 52 56 60.

 

This would tighten up my low gaps and really I can hit a 17 or 19 hybrid almost as far as fairway wood but much cleaner....

 

 

anyone else?

 

Can't help....there's so few shots during a round that require a 17 or 19 that it's not worth focusing upon.

[nsxguy]

Haven't gotten along with a fairway wood in a loooooong time. About the last one I can remember is my NP99 13.5 3 wood. Hit it great off the tee as a shorter par 4 initial shot but off the fairway ? No go.

 

I've had my 16*, 20*, & 23* Adams A12 Idea Pros for about 7 years now, since they came out, and haven't looked back..

 

FWIW, 2nd shots on par 5s are generally 5-8 irons for me to play to a spot where I'll have a full swing in with a GW-8 iron. Only exception is when I can get it within 10-20 yards (or on of course) with almost no trouble around the green; much further than that and I'll generally lay up.

 

Some of the 3 woods around lately though are pretty good though. Might experiment with some soon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[BearQ]

I haven't hit a good fairway shot in 10 years. Yet I keep a 3 wood or 4 wood in the bag that matches my driver - it's OCD.

 

I finally find the newer hybrids much better than the older ones and I'm thinking about going 17 / 21 hybrids (G400 or M1 or cobra...)

 

And ditch fairway woods all together and play 4-P 52 56 60.

 

This would tighten up my low gaps and really I can hit a 17 or 19 hybrid almost as far as fairway wood but much cleaner....

 

 

anyone else?

 

Can't help....there's so few shots during a round that require a 17 or 19 that it's not worth focusing upon.

 

Yeah really depends where you play eh. I’m a member at a 54 hole club.

 

I’d say 25-30 of those holes would see use from a club 17-19* range. With bunkering and tight tee balls or approaches into par 5s.

 

I also wouldn’t focus on how many times in a round, cause even if it’s 2-3 times and it leads to more eagle/birdie chances or simply keeps you out of major trouble...that’s the name of the game

[Detroit Shooter]

I play an 18 degree hybrid. I am comfortable with it. I can not hit a fairway wood reliably. I do plan to get a couple lessons and try to figure it out but I don't think it is hurting my game.

 

My index is 12 and trying to hit par 5's in two is usually not good course management for me. They are guarded by water or heather or both! My home courses are very penal.

The first hole on the course I play the most is a par 5. There is heather right and left and bunkers right and left in the driver landing area. My strategy last year was to hit a 4 hybrid short of the heather and traps and a 5 iron to a comfortable distance. Around the green is deep lush heather, there is a good chance that if you find the heather you are not going to find your ball. I try and take the big number out of play. People question me hitting hybrid off the tee but I always have a shot. Many many of the people that ask that question score higher than me on that hole. But hey I'm a 12 and not a big hitter.

[Donno]

I haven't hit a good fairway shot in 10 years. Yet I keep a 3 wood or 4 wood in the bag that matches my driver - it's OCD.

 

I finally find the newer hybrids much better than the older ones and I'm thinking about going 17 / 21 hybrids (G400 or M1 or cobra...)

 

And ditch fairway woods all together and play 4-P 52 56 60.

 

This would tighten up my low gaps and really I can hit a 17 or 19 hybrid almost as far as fairway wood but much cleaner....

 

 

anyone else?

 

How many times to you hit a 2 iron during a round? Unless that's your "driver" club, focusing on low-lofted clubs is like worrying about 3% of your shots. I'd practice the short-game like no tomorrow.

 

The average scratch player hits about ten and a half greens a round, meaning he has the chance to get up and down seven and a half times a round. If he can get as good as a PGA tour player, he'll save par 64% of the time, or roughly 3.75 strokes per round. Now think about how much you have to practice short game to get as good as a tour pro.

 

The most important skill in golf is hitting greens. You should absolutely make sure you can hack it on the green in the short game and two putt, but the best way to lower your handicap fast is irons, then driver, then short game. Short game is a route to improvement for sure, but it is no match for hitting more greens.

 

IMO, of course.

 

Using your stats which i don't doubt, that means the other 95% of golfers are missing a lot of greens. As I stated, assuming a guy uses his driver, the % of use of 3W or 2I on most challenging courses is too small to focus upon IMO. Driver, wedge(s), and putter are the predominately used clubs.

[Bubbtubbs]

Every one of these “low-lofted hybrid vs. 3-wood” threads ends with the same basic points being made:

1. Some folks say they hit the hybrid better, and they believe that the few extra yards they might get out of a 3-wood aren’t worth the risk of disastrous 3-wood shots
   
2. Pinestreetgolf (psg) tells those folks that “statistics say” that they actually don’t hit their 3-wood that bad (or perhaps that they don’t hit a hybrid as well as they think).
   
3. Since “Every Shot Counts” tells us that “closer is better,” psg tells us we should hit our 3-wood (because it is longer, it should get us closer to the hole, resulting in lower scores in the long run).
   

 

Point #2 may be true, on average, but it is no real help. We all have to make the best judgement we can, and most of us are not willing to collect detailed stats while we play. Even if we were willing, it would take many, many rounds to gather enough data to distinguish, in a statistically significant way, whether playing a 3-wood or 2-hybrid results in lower scores in the long run. Most of us just don’t take that many shots per round with these clubs.

 

As for Point #3, the “strokes gained” data does indeed show that “closer is better.” But the data does not address differences in possible outcomes using different strategies from a given distance. So if I have 240 to the green on a Par 5, the data doesn’t necessarily say whether it’s better to hit a 190 yard hybrid/50 yard wedge, or a 210 yard 3-wood/30 yard wedge (yes, I am a short hitter). If I execute both layups effectively, the latter strategy is better, because 30 yards is better than 50 yards. But that “if" is what this entire discussion hinges on. Am I taking too big a risk trying to get those extra 20 yards? It obviously depends on how well the individual golfer hits the various shots being considered in these scenarios.

 

Everyone needs to evaluate for themselves whether a 3-wood or low-lofted hybrid is their best bet. PSG is correct is saying that we should look as objectively as we can at our actual shot outcomes when deciding which way to go. But we should stop pretending that aggregated strokes-gained data is going to objectively answer the question for individuals.

 

Course management. All the talk about hitting some hybrid or 3W 20 yards longer is nonsense. Layup to a distance for a comfortable 3rd shot...most likely about 100 - 110 yards to allow a fuller swing...even on par 4's if the 2nd shot will likely end in disaster. Practicing wedge play is an easier way to cut strokes.

#nevrlayup

 

Unless there's a hazard that's going to cost you strokes, fire at pins.

[Donno]

I play an 18 degree hybrid. I am comfortable with it. I can not hit a fairway wood reliably. I do plan to get a couple lessons and try to figure it out but I don't think it is hurting my game.

 

My index is 12 and trying to hit par 5's in two is usually not good course management for me. They are guarded by water or heather or both! My home courses are very penal.

The first hole on the course I play the most is a par 5. There is heather right and left and bunkers right and left in the driver landing area. My strategy last year was to hit a 4 hybrid short of the heather and traps and a 5 iron to a comfortable distance. Around the green is deep lush heather, there is a good chance that if you find the heather you are not going to find your ball. I try and take the big number out of play. People question me hitting hybrid off the tee but I always have a shot. Many many of the people that ask that question score higher than me on that hole. But hey I'm a 12 and not a big hitter.

 

Actually that's good course management and smart play...playing to your strengths.

[gatoreric]

Ditched the 5W, but still have my 3W.

[Tex1986]

I carry 3wood, 17*H, 3i(20*).

 

I’m an 11 handicap that doesn’t practice much. I rarely hit 3wood unless I absolutely have to and the shot calls for a 230 yards and can accommodate the 20-30 yards of left to right fade motion. Truthfully if I add another wedge, 3wood gets pulled.

 

If I have 220-230 into a pin on a par 5, I’m hitting 7 iron(170 yards) and pitching the 3rd shot in close. Worst I can do is par, maybe I’ll up and down for a birdie. If I practiced a couple times a week, I might give it a go with the 3W, but I don’t see that happening any time soon lol.

[Tex1986]

I carry 3wood, 17*H, 3i(20*).

 

I’m an 11 handicap that doesn’t practice much. I rarely hit 3wood unless I absolutely have to and the shot calls for a 230 yards and can accommodate the 20-30 yards of left to right fade motion. Truthfully if I add another wedge, 3wood gets pulled.

 

If I have 220-230 into a pin on a par 5, I’m hitting 7 iron(170 yards) and pitching the 3rd shot in close. Worst I can do is par, maybe I’ll up and down for a birdie. If I practiced a couple times a week, I might give it a go with the 3W, but I don’t see that happening any time soon lol.

[used balls]

Game this setup 17 818 H2 & 20.5 915 Hd both with PX HD2 92g 6.0... 17 for me more accurate just could never get the 5wd to play as accurately as a hybrid & too old to swing a 3 iron 20.5 Hyb has been a game changer.

[matchavez]

I carry 3wood, 17*H, 3i(20*).

 

I’m an 11 handicap that doesn’t practice much. I rarely hit 3wood unless I absolutely have to and the shot calls for a 230 yards and can accommodate the 20-30 yards of left to right fade motion. Truthfully if I add another wedge, 3wood gets pulled.

 

If I have 220-230 into a pin on a par 5, I’m hitting 7 iron(170 yards) and pitching the 3rd shot in close. Worst I can do is par, maybe I’ll up and down for a birdie. If I practiced a couple times a week, I might give it a go with the 3W, but I don’t see that happening any time soon lol.

 

Wait, whuuut?

 

What magic 7-iron do you have that does 170 when your 3-wood only does 230?

 

Or, how rubbish is your 3-wood?