Age Old Question: The Archer or the Arrow?

[pinestreetgolf]

Thanks for the explanation. I can't remember, do you try and shape your tee shots?

 

For me, I feel like I have two different clubs by virtue of two different shots/setups. I think you do something similar? I have my "distance" setup which could result in a two way miss, then I have my "cut" setup that loses 15 yards but it's shades of how far right I want to work it. It's great to setup left edge of a treeline and know it's stop somewhere in the clear.

 

I don't really, and I actually use only those two as well. I can hit a pretty reliable push-cut that loses way more than 15 yards (maybe 30?) but is all carry or I'm trying to hit it dead straight. Either I'm hitting the high cut or tee it high and let it fly.

[bluedot]

The good thing about Age old questions is that they have have age old verified answers. Archer.

 

The longer version is that some arrows may give you 3mph more speed it 1 yards tighter dispersion more distance or whatever but while all those are beat to death here none of them translate to score despite what you argue. Let's say you birdie off a 7 iron. By the same arrow rationale, every time You use a pw-8 iron You should at least birdie or par. Why then can you bogey off a pw coming off a birdie with a 7 when no one would argue with fact a pw offers a greater advantage over a 7 iron in terms of getting it close and scoring? I understand in time it is percentages, but that gets really muddled and the simple and complicated Answer is archer.

 

Your rationale is, with all due respect, illogical. You can't seriously argue that hitting a 7 iron vs an 8 iron doesn't matter over time and a lot of holes; it may not matter on two holes in one round, but that's not the point.

 

If I make a birdie on ONE hole with a 7 iron, that has no bearing on what I did the previous hole, or on the next hole, or on that hole the next round I play. Every round, every hole, every swing is a stand-alone. I've made a hole-in-one with a 4 iron, and I've bladed PW's into oblivion; that doesn't mean that I'd prefer to hit a 4 iron over a PW if given the choice, does it? And it isn't "muddled" at all to say that if you're hitting shorter clubs into greens all day long, day after day, you are probably going to score better on average. There is a MOUNTAIN of data that proves that; there's no logical argument against it.

 

I think we all agree that a good golfer can play good golf with inferior clubs, and that superior clubs won't turn a bad golfer into a good golfer; none of that is in question.

 

Let's assume that Justin Thomas and Jordan Spieth are equal in every respect (they aren't, of course, but for the sake of argument...) Let them play against each other with one of them playing his own clubs, and the other playing MY clubs, which are optimized TO ME; R flexes, 3* upright, and inch longer, etc. The guy playing my clubs will hit some great shots, and he will end with a good score. But the guy playing his own clubs will have an advantage; there's no way around it.

 

The same thing would be true of two "equal" college golfers, or two equal low index amateurs, or two 15 handicaps, and so on. The degree to which it's true is arguable, but not the truth itself. Mark Broadie's data shows beyond any doubt that proximity of approach is THE key separator between better scores and worse scores at EVERY level of golf; not the ONLY separator, but the key one. And no matter how good or bad the archer, inferior arrows don't come as close to the target. They just don't.

 

I don't think anyone has EVER argued that the best way to hit the ball closer to the hole is better equipment over a better swing. I work on my swing a thousand times more than I change equipment, and I NEVER change equipment without data that tells me it will be an improvement. (I also understand that the point of equipment changes is MUCH more about improving my misses than it is about making my good shots better.) I work my butt off at being a better archer, but I have zero interest in using bows or arrows that aren't the best I can get. I'd be an idiot to do otherwise.

[Bye]

Just to stir the pot,

 

I changed one of my arrows, driver. It’s been behaving really badly for a long time. Attached are the results of a gripping down experiment. I thought I was hitting in the middle of the face, so wrong.

 

Cutting down the shaft has changed the strike location, shot shape etc. (No data) just an old school test.

 

Same archer.

[mlido02]

Just to stir the pot,

 

I changed one of my arrows, driver. It's been behaving really badly for a long time. Attached are the results of a gripping down experiment. I thought I was hitting in the middle of the face, so wrong.

 

Cutting down the shaft has changed the strike location, shot shape etc. (No data) just an old school test.

 

Same archer.

 

 

Love it. i cut my driver down and saw better results as well. but still you hitting the ball in the center of the face :) While I agree having equipment suited to your game and your swing tendencies is good and instills confidence, it doesn't fix your bad shots, which they just say "eh, we'll take that one out" at fittings. It's those bad shots that ultimately have the most impact on SCORING, which is all that matters. I'd agree better fit clubs lead to more desirable shots on well struck shots, but does that ultimately lead to lower scores? i'd say minimally at best until the player fixes, or becomes more consistent in avoiding what's causing them to make poor shots... like those one's off the very bottom :)

[Bye]

Just to stir the pot,

 

I changed one of my arrows, driver. It's been behaving really badly for a long time. Attached are the results of a gripping down experiment. I thought I was hitting in the middle of the face, so wrong.

 

Cutting down the shaft has changed the strike location, shot shape etc. (No data) just an old school test.

 

Same archer.

 

 

Love it. i cut my driver down and saw better results as well. but still you hitting the ball in the center of the face :) While I agree having equipment suited to your game and your swing tendencies is good and instills confidence, it doesn't fix your bad shots, which they just say "eh, we'll take that one out" at fittings. It's those bad shots that ultimately have the most impact on SCORING, which is all that matters. I'd agree better fit clubs lead to more desirable shots on well struck shots, but does that ultimately lead to lower scores? i'd say minimally at best until the player fixes, or becomes more consistent in avoiding what's causing them to make poor shots... like those one's off the very bottom :)

 

It’s helped with the bad shots which were spiny and very right, and I couldn’t hit a draw. The draw is back, the flight is flatter and the big right has gone (for now).

 

I agree though, technique is king.

 

The marks on the bottom are from the rubber tee on the driving range. Although I am partial to a top now and again!

[PuttingIsNotGolf]

This archer can’t throw an arrow very far

[jjj912]

I think it scales with the players skill set, but it is still the golfer that dominates the equation. A beginner who has trouble contacting the ball would probably do equally well with a modern club or a 50 year old club. For these player, it might be 98% golfer and 2% equipment. A highly skilled player can adapt to the club. An ill fitting 50 year old club will cost the highly skilled player strokes, but such a player has the ability to adapt and compete even with the bad equipment. For these players, it might be 90% player and 10% equipment. A player somewhere between these two is the one that is really handicapped if the equipment is ill fitting due to having minimal ability to adapt to the equipment. For these players, it might be 75% golfer, 25% equipment since the difference between old ill fitting equipment and good fitted equipment can really improve players ball flight and consistency. No matter the skill level, the golfer dominates because even the latest and greatest infomercial wedge can only do so much if you're going to insist on chipping by hanging back on your trailing foot and flip the club through impact.

 

The importance of the equipment scales with the competitive environment. The players on a professional Tour are all highly skilled and it is difficult for a player to create and maintain a skill advantage over the competition. Even when a player does build an advantage, it is often worth only a fraction of a stroke. Having the best equipment is critical for these players since a lost stroke due to inferior equipment can offset the skill advantage. On the flip side, a player whose competition consists of their drinking buddies (drinking, of course) and a game where mulligans and conceded short putts are the norm has no need for great equipment since the advantage gained through equipment doesn't mean anything when Joe can breakfast ball that out of bounds slice on the first tee and Sally can pick up that knee knocking three footer.