My Experience Gaming Blades as a Mid-High Handicapper

[cliffhanger]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > The real question here is why does it bother you that much what their decision to play is? Apparently it bothers you that much you have reposted how many times on this thread?

> > > > >

> > > > > That isn't fair. Breaking the 4th wall to claim people posting on the internet _'care too much'_ is such a cop-out.

> > > > >

> > > > > If you resort to insulting people because they visit WRX and post in the threads then you are, by your own logic, just as foolish for _"caring."_

> > > > >

> > > > > Folks could turn around and admonish you for being a loser in the same way. So whether we're all losers for caring or we're the bravest people around for tackling the issue, it's better to not do what you're doing.

> > > > i didn't say anyone was foolish for caring... i am simply asking why they care so much? i didn't judge his stance. I also don't believe i resorted to insulting anyone, if thats what you get from that post then ok. I think the big takeaway from my post is that both sides care and for their own reasons. I see that and i accept it. My issue is with those who can't see the other side for whatever reason that is.

> > > > And yes i have been accused of being foolish by those who know me best... and i can't argue with their opinion because they own it, not me.

> > >

> > > We care insofar as we're trying to share our experiences. That's called being an _empathetic human_.

> > >

> > > No one's saying Tiger Woods shouldn't use blades.

> > >

> > > Stop saying one side cares more than the other. From above, no one gives a ****. We're just debating stuff. Caring doesn't come into it, at last not how you're implying which is making out that some people can't stand seeing blades in others bags.

> >

> > i didn't say that one side cares more than the other. i said that both sides care and for their own reasons. I like debates and i love seeing posts like yours above that is based around your own personal experience. I know by reading it that you understand why you score the way you do which is something that has been discussed on here as being a flaw of some. The problem is from both sides that many posts have been very far from personal experience sharing.

>

> Fair enough, and yes, I'd prefer people just share more openly without insult.

>

> That said, I prefer not get into a discussion wherein we're using phrases like "you care" or "he cares." It's implied by our presence here that we care. Whether that's good or bad is irrelevant to the debate. I understand your reaction though if it's simply to dissuade people from being so cynical. I do agree, cynicism doesn't help.

>

> I try to remember that I was once a beginner with blades. I think it's interesting that I tried blades and got addicted to golf. Maybe there was a connection? Maybe not.

 

for the most part the internet feeds off of drama, not shared personal experience. Thats why the most sensible posts get the least feedback and gain the least amount of traction within a thread. Most people can't argue with sensible, they will hunt out any mistake and capitalize on it.

My experience while shared often is simple, when i played blades last year for the first time i thrived when i practiced a lot and i worked on the entire game... when i didn't the irons exposed my game for what it was. Its like they knew i thought i was too good to practice and they punished me for it. With that said i still very much enjoy reading of other peoples successes. Even if they may not truly understand where the success came from.

[deadsolid...shank]

Sorry to veer a bit off topic onto this tangent again. But how do you guys define “a good/great ball striker”?

 

Is it an objective number like greens & fairways hit, or a subjective thing like how it sounds and what the judge the quality of the strike to be?

[MelloYello]

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > The real question here is why does it bother you that much what their decision to play is? Apparently it bothers you that much you have reposted how many times on this thread?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That isn't fair. Breaking the 4th wall to claim people posting on the internet _'care too much'_ is such a cop-out.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you resort to insulting people because they visit WRX and post in the threads then you are, by your own logic, just as foolish for _"caring."_

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Folks could turn around and admonish you for being a loser in the same way. So whether we're all losers for caring or we're the bravest people around for tackling the issue, it's better to not do what you're doing.

> > > > > i didn't say anyone was foolish for caring... i am simply asking why they care so much? i didn't judge his stance. I also don't believe i resorted to insulting anyone, if thats what you get from that post then ok. I think the big takeaway from my post is that both sides care and for their own reasons. I see that and i accept it. My issue is with those who can't see the other side for whatever reason that is.

> > > > > And yes i have been accused of being foolish by those who know me best... and i can't argue with their opinion because they own it, not me.

> > > >

> > > > We care insofar as we're trying to share our experiences. That's called being an _empathetic human_.

> > > >

> > > > No one's saying Tiger Woods shouldn't use blades.

> > > >

> > > > Stop saying one side cares more than the other. From above, no one gives a ****. We're just debating stuff. Caring doesn't come into it, at last not how you're implying which is making out that some people can't stand seeing blades in others bags.

> > >

> > > i didn't say that one side cares more than the other. i said that both sides care and for their own reasons. I like debates and i love seeing posts like yours above that is based around your own personal experience. I know by reading it that you understand why you score the way you do which is something that has been discussed on here as being a flaw of some. The problem is from both sides that many posts have been very far from personal experience sharing.

> >

> > Fair enough, and yes, I'd prefer people just share more openly without insult.

> >

> > That said, I prefer not get into a discussion wherein we're using phrases like "you care" or "he cares." It's implied by our presence here that we care. Whether that's good or bad is irrelevant to the debate. I understand your reaction though if it's simply to dissuade people from being so cynical. I do agree, cynicism doesn't help.

> >

> > I try to remember that I was once a beginner with blades. I think it's interesting that I tried blades and got addicted to golf. Maybe there was a connection? Maybe not.

>

> for the most part the internet feeds off of drama, not shared personal experience. Thats why the most sensible posts get the least feedback and gain the least amount of traction within a thread. Most people can't argue with sensible, they will hunt out any mistake and capitalize on it.

> My experience while shared often is simple, when i played blades last year for the first time i thrived when i practiced a lot and i worked on the entire game... when i didn't the irons exposed my game for what it was. Its like they knew i thought i was too good to practice and they punished me for it. With that said i still very much enjoy reading of other peoples successes. Even if they may not truly understand where the success came from.

 

Yeah, IDK, we're all golfers here so I don't think we get a lot of "drama" in the GolfWRX Equipment forum (thankfully). So if somebody is a little harsh, I tend not to mind. Relative to the rest of the internet world, boards like this where we share as a community tend to be pretty polite.

 

I don't think that it's going to matter between blades and CBs for most golfers of reasonable skill. I certainly can hit some great shots with blades. I remember the feeling well. I switched because I wanted specific things. I wanted a matching set 3-P with longer irons that were easier to launch. I preferred a club that gave me a more playable result when pulled up out of a shot and missed on the toe. These CBs I have do just that.

 

I also have to carry a lot more water on my current course as well as negate side-hill lies. I know from growing up on a flatter course that you aren't really tested until you start getting lies that really fight you. On a flatter course, I might be hitting blades still? As I said, the one time I did that last year I hit 12 GIR and felt great about my iron play.

[cliffhanger]

> @MelloYello said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > > The real question here is why does it bother you that much what their decision to play is? Apparently it bothers you that much you have reposted how many times on this thread?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > That isn't fair. Breaking the 4th wall to claim people posting on the internet _'care too much'_ is such a cop-out.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you resort to insulting people because they visit WRX and post in the threads then you are, by your own logic, just as foolish for _"caring."_

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Folks could turn around and admonish you for being a loser in the same way. So whether we're all losers for caring or we're the bravest people around for tackling the issue, it's better to not do what you're doing.

> > > > > > i didn't say anyone was foolish for caring... i am simply asking why they care so much? i didn't judge his stance. I also don't believe i resorted to insulting anyone, if thats what you get from that post then ok. I think the big takeaway from my post is that both sides care and for their own reasons. I see that and i accept it. My issue is with those who can't see the other side for whatever reason that is.

> > > > > > And yes i have been accused of being foolish by those who know me best... and i can't argue with their opinion because they own it, not me.

> > > > >

> > > > > We care insofar as we're trying to share our experiences. That's called being an _empathetic human_.

> > > > >

> > > > > No one's saying Tiger Woods shouldn't use blades.

> > > > >

> > > > > Stop saying one side cares more than the other. From above, no one gives a ****. We're just debating stuff. Caring doesn't come into it, at last not how you're implying which is making out that some people can't stand seeing blades in others bags.

> > > >

> > > > i didn't say that one side cares more than the other. i said that both sides care and for their own reasons. I like debates and i love seeing posts like yours above that is based around your own personal experience. I know by reading it that you understand why you score the way you do which is something that has been discussed on here as being a flaw of some. The problem is from both sides that many posts have been very far from personal experience sharing.

> > >

> > > Fair enough, and yes, I'd prefer people just share more openly without insult.

> > >

> > > That said, I prefer not get into a discussion wherein we're using phrases like "you care" or "he cares." It's implied by our presence here that we care. Whether that's good or bad is irrelevant to the debate. I understand your reaction though if it's simply to dissuade people from being so cynical. I do agree, cynicism doesn't help.

> > >

> > > I try to remember that I was once a beginner with blades. I think it's interesting that I tried blades and got addicted to golf. Maybe there was a connection? Maybe not.

> >

> > for the most part the internet feeds off of drama, not shared personal experience. Thats why the most sensible posts get the least feedback and gain the least amount of traction within a thread. Most people can't argue with sensible, they will hunt out any mistake and capitalize on it.

> > My experience while shared often is simple, when i played blades last year for the first time i thrived when i practiced a lot and i worked on the entire game... when i didn't the irons exposed my game for what it was. Its like they knew i thought i was too good to practice and they punished me for it. With that said i still very much enjoy reading of other peoples successes. Even if they may not truly understand where the success came from.

>

> Yeah, IDK, we're all golfers here so I don't think we get a lot of "drama" in the GolfWRX Equipment forum (thankfully). So if somebody is a little harsh, I tend not to mind. Relative to the rest of the internet world, boards like this where we share as a community tend to be pretty polite.

>

> I don't think that it's going to matter between blades and CBs for most golfers of reasonable skill. I certainly can hit some great shots with blades. I remember the feeling well. I switched because I wanted specific things. I wanted a matching set 3-P with longer irons that were easier to launch. I wanted a club that gave me a more playable result when pulled up out of a shot and missed on the toe. These CBs I have do just that.

>

> I also have to carry a lot more water on my current course as well as negate side-hill lies. I know from growing up on a flatter course that you aren't really tested until you start getting lies that really fight you. On a flatter course, I might be hitting blades still? As I said, the one time I did that last year I hit 12 GIR and felt great about my iron play.

 

from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

[MelloYello]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> Sorry to veer a bit off topic onto this tangent again. But how do you guys define “a good/great ball striker”?

>

> Is it an objective number like greens & fairways hit, or a subjective thing like how it sounds and what the judge the quality of the strike to be?

 

My definition has definitely hardened with time. I used to think it was just how one _'felt'_ about their ability to hit solid shots. If someone wanted to say they were a good ball-striker it was their prerogative.

 

Now I realize it's more about results. It's a term describing one's tendency to consistently put the ball where they want. Still, there's no one metric. I don't have standards for what "good" is but I will compare players more on their actual results, like GIRs, since that is more or less determined by one's ability to control his/her full swing and to check the other boxes along the way: survey the lie, pick the shot, pull the right club, align properly, etc..

[MelloYello]

> @cliffhanger said:

> from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

 

I agree on all counts.

 

It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

 

And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

 

Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

[cliffhanger]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> Sorry to veer a bit off topic onto this tangent again. But how do you guys define “a good/great ball striker”?

>

> Is it an objective number like greens & fairways hit, or a subjective thing like how it sounds and what the judge the quality of the strike to be?

 

to me this subject is very complicated even though it shouldn't be. The reason for it isn't by the definition alone. Its because words like good, solid, close, control and tight are used to explain the definition.

All of these words then have to be broken down subjectively: how truly good was it? how solid is your solid shot? how close are you talking about? what is decent control? How tight is that dispersion? Thats where the conversation gets interesting because now we are trying to define or justify each word as it relates to your own game.

Should we all be compared to tour pros when comparing ball striking abilities? i think we should be. That means i would define myself (being an 8 index) as being an ok ball striker. That would also take into consideration that i feel like at times my iron play is a strength and that i hit close to 50% of all greens in reg. Where does that fit me into the big scheme of things? Maybe above average, poor, abysmal, non existent and somewhere below decent, good, very good, super good, awesome, amazing and finally "great". Somewhere in the middle i think that puts me?

[nsxguy]

> @cliffhanger said:

> what's wrong with play 'em because you want to?

 

Absolutely NOTHING.

 

I would have thought "play whatever you want for whatever reasons you want" was pretty clear,,,,,,,, but maybe not.,

[braincramp52]

Hey, we're getting back to normal around here. A blade vs shovel controversy

[cliffhanger]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > what's wrong with play 'em because you want to?

> Absolutely NOTHING

interesting answer. yes that does go without saying.

 

 

[Golf4lifer]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

>

> I agree on all counts.

>

> It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

>

> And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

>

> Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

 

This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

 

Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

[cliffhanger]

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> >

> > I agree on all counts.

> >

> > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> >

> > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> >

> > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

>

> This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

>

> Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

 

for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

[Golf4lifer]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > >

> > > I agree on all counts.

> > >

> > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > >

> > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > >

> > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> >

> > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> >

> > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

>

> for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

 

Actually none of them where. They were on par 4’s and 5’s. Funny story. I don’t consider myself a good ball striker, but the people I play with do. When I miss a green from the fairway/rough, I’m typically on the fringe or left of target, but pin high and sometimes short. My short game is great and I am decent off the tee. Last year I averaged about 8 greens with a high of 12 once(4 were par 3’s).

 

I think I am average ball striker.

 

Edit: Actually I do tend to hit a lot of greens on par 3’s on average. Just not those rounds I scored some of my best rounds.

[cliffhanger]

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > >

> > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > >

> > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > >

> > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > >

> > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > >

> > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > >

> > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> >

> > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

>

> Actually none of them where. They were on par 4’s and 5’s. Funny story. I don’t consider myself a good ball striker, but the people I play with do. When I miss a green from the fairway/rough, I’m typically on the fringe or left of target, but pin high and sometimes short. My short game is great and I am decent off the tee. Last year I averaged about 8 greens with a high of 12 once(4 were par 3’s).

>

> I think I am average ball striker.

>

> Edit: Actually I do tend to hit a lot of greens on par 3’s on average. Just not those rounds I scored some of my best rounds.

 

I would recommend tracking how many GIR’s you get a round after you hit a fairway and include all par three holes as well. Then look at that specific average to help judge your ballstriking. Do you track your average GIR’s and if so what is it currently?

[cliffhanger]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > >

> > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > >

> > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > >

> > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> >

> > Actually none of them where. They were on par 4’s and 5’s. Funny story. I don’t consider myself a good ball striker, but the people I play with do. When I miss a green from the fairway/rough, I’m typically on the fringe or left of target, but pin high and sometimes short. My short game is great and I am decent off the tee. Last year I averaged about 8 greens with a high of 12 once(4 were par 3’s).

> >

> > I think I am average ball striker.

> >

> > Edit: Actually I do tend to hit a lot of greens on par 3’s on average. Just not those rounds I scored some of my best rounds.

>

> I would recommend tracking how many GIR’s you get a round after you hit a fairway and include all par three holes as well. Then look at that specific average to help judge your ballstriking. Do you track your average GIR’s and if so what is it currently? Not just for last year but overall?

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> >

> > I agree on all counts.

> >

> > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> >

> > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> >

> > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

>

> This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

>

 

 

Those are low-probability events that (in theory) wash out with large sample sizes.

[MelloYello]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > >

> > > I agree on all counts.

> > >

> > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > >

> > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > >

> > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> >

> > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> >

> > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

>

> for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

 

We use GIR to define ball-striking because there's a very strong correlation between how many GIRs a golfer averages and their overall handicap.

 

It's that simple.

 

[deadsolid...shank]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > >

> > > I agree on all counts.

> > >

> > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > >

> > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > >

> > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> >

> > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> >

> > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

>

> for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

 

While I do track my GIR, I don’t use it to define ball striking. He’s why, and this is just me, my old home course had very small, very firm greens. They could be difficult to hit and hold at times even with a short club. Some had small “nodes” that were only about 10 paces wide, you could hit a very good shot and still miss the green. The good part was, if you did hit the green you usually had a reasonable birdie chance.

 

To me, there are just way too variables in fairways and greens hit (at the Prairie Club in the Nebraska Sandhills we joke that it’s impossible to miss a fairway on the Dunes course) to use them. On that same Dunes course you have a GIR and easily walk off with a double or triple.

 

Kind of why I posed the question, was just curious how others experiences have shaped their thoughts. I’m very much a person who bases my opinions on the sound of the strike and the flight of the ball. It’s obviously very, very subjective but found it to be a pretty good barometer over the years.

 

 

[Golf4lifer]

> @cliffhanger said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > >

> > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > >

> > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > >

> > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> >

> > Actually none of them where. They were on par 4’s and 5’s. Funny story. I don’t consider myself a good ball striker, but the people I play with do. When I miss a green from the fairway/rough, I’m typically on the fringe or left of target, but pin high and sometimes short. My short game is great and I am decent off the tee. Last year I averaged about 8 greens with a high of 12 once(4 were par 3’s).

> >

> > I think I am average ball striker.

> >

> > Edit: Actually I do tend to hit a lot of greens on par 3’s on average. Just not those rounds I scored some of my best rounds.

>

> I would recommend tracking how many GIR’s you get a round after you hit a fairway and include all par three holes as well. Then look at that specific average to help judge your ballstriking. Do you track your average GIR’s and if so what is it currently?

 

I only started tracking my greens in the latter part of 2017 and it it’s about 7.9 greens per round. I would need to start tracking from the fairway and rough. I would need to do the math for the par 3 greens as I did not previously. I just entered the total number of fairways, greens and putts into a spreadsheet. I will expand my spreadsheet because now I am curious. It may help me get to my goal of a 7 handicap.

[Golf4lifer]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > >

> > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > >

> > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > >

> > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > >

> > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > >

> > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > >

> > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> >

> > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

>

> We use GIR to define ball-striking because there's a very strong correlation between how many GIRs a golfer averages and their overall handicap.

>

> It's that simple.

>

 

 

So what would be the handicap of a golfer that averages 8 greens?

[MelloYello]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @cliffhanger said:

> > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > >

> > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > >

> > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > >

> > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > >

> > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > >

> > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > >

> > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> >

> > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

>

> While I do track my GIR, I don’t use it to define ball striking. He’s why, and this is just me, my old home course had very small, very firm greens. They could be difficult to hit and hold at times even with a short club. Some had small “nodes” that were only about 10 paces wide, you could hit a very good shot and still miss the green. The good part was, if you did hit the green you usually had a reasonable birdie chance.

>

> To me, there are just way too variables in fairways and greens hit (at the Prairie Club in the Nebraska Sandhills we joke that it’s impossible to miss a fairway on the Dunes course) to use them. On that same Dunes course you have a GIR and easily walk off with a double or triple.

>

> Kind of why I posed the question, was just curious how others experiences have shaped their thoughts. I’m very much a person who bases my opinions on the sound of the strike and the flight of the ball. It’s obviously very, very subjective but found it to be a pretty good barometer over the years.

>

 

A few points:

 

First, in an ideal world, ball-striking would be measured by PTT (proximity to target). That's probably the fairest thing to do.

 

Second, since PTT isn't practical to measure and catalog, GIR is a good alternative assuming that (on average) green size is normal. If a guy only plays on a course with small greens and never anywhere else, his GIR will suffer relative to other golfers but he should account for that before he judges himself or advises others.

 

Third, if we judge by "sound" and "flight" we have little means of quantitatively measuring and cataloging the results and thus we're not really doing anything but judging each shot as it comes. Without an inventory of data, we can't really make specific statements.

[deadsolid...shank]

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > >

> > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > >

> > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > >

> > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> >

> > We use GIR to define ball-striking because there's a very strong correlation between how many GIRs a golfer averages and their overall handicap.

> >

> > It's that simple.

> >

>

>

> Can you show me stats in that? I am really curious.

 

I’m not a stats person at all (as many here will vouch for), but I do think on most normal or average courses, it is still a decent general indicator of the handicap. The courses I mentioned above, one I consider way outside the ordinary (The Dunes course) and the other (my old home course) a little out of the ordinary range.

 

 

[deadsolid...shank]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > >

> > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > >

> > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > >

> > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> >

> > While I do track my GIR, I don’t use it to define ball striking. He’s why, and this is just me, my old home course had very small, very firm greens. They could be difficult to hit and hold at times even with a short club. Some had small “nodes” that were only about 10 paces wide, you could hit a very good shot and still miss the green. The good part was, if you did hit the green you usually had a reasonable birdie chance.

> >

> > To me, there are just way too variables in fairways and greens hit (at the Prairie Club in the Nebraska Sandhills we joke that it’s impossible to miss a fairway on the Dunes course) to use them. On that same Dunes course you have a GIR and easily walk off with a double or triple.

> >

> > Kind of why I posed the question, was just curious how others experiences have shaped their thoughts. I’m very much a person who bases my opinions on the sound of the strike and the flight of the ball. It’s obviously very, very subjective but found it to be a pretty good barometer over the years.

> >

>

> A few points:

>

> First, in an ideal world, ball-striking would be measured by PTT (proximity to target). That's probably the fairest thing to do.

>

> Second, since PTT isn't practical to measure and catalog, GIR is a good alternative assuming that (on average) green size is normal. If a guy only plays on a course with small greens and never anywhere else, his GIR will suffer relative to other golfers but he should account for that before he judges himself or advises others.

>

> Third, if we judge by "sound" and "flight" we have little means of quantitatively measuring and cataloging the results and thus we're not really doing anything but judging each shot as it comes. Without an inventory of data, we can't really make specific statements.

 

All true, but as I said above, I’m very non stats oriented, so I don’t need quanatative!?

 

[wmblake2000]

> @cliffhanger said:

 

> for the most part the internet feeds off of drama, not shared personal experience. Thats why the most sensible posts get the least feedback and gain the least amount of traction within a thread. Most people can't argue with sensible, they will hunt out any mistake and capitalize on it.

 

 

^^^ This. As I scanned the most recent posts I was thinking ‘people just like to debate/argue/be right.’

 

I think getting irons right is the hardest equipment fitting challenge.

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > >

> > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > >

> > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > >

> > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> >

> > While I do track my GIR, I don’t use it to define ball striking. He’s why, and this is just me, my old home course had very small, very firm greens. They could be difficult to hit and hold at times even with a short club. Some had small “nodes” that were only about 10 paces wide, you could hit a very good shot and still miss the green. The good part was, if you did hit the green you usually had a reasonable birdie chance.

> >

> > To me, there are just way too variables in fairways and greens hit (at the Prairie Club in the Nebraska Sandhills we joke that it’s impossible to miss a fairway on the Dunes course) to use them. On that same Dunes course you have a GIR and easily walk off with a double or triple.

> >

> > Kind of why I posed the question, was just curious how others experiences have shaped their thoughts. I’m very much a person who bases my opinions on the sound of the strike and the flight of the ball. It’s obviously very, very subjective but found it to be a pretty good barometer over the years.

> >

>

> A few points:

>

> First, in an ideal world, ball-striking would be measured by PTT (proximity to target). That's probably the fairest thing to do.

>

> Second, since PTT isn't practical to measure and catalog, GIR is a good alternative assuming that (on average) green size is normal.

>

> Third, if we judge by "sound" and "flight" we have little means of quantitatively measuring and cataloging the results and thus we're not really doing anything but judging each shot as it comes. Without an inventory of data, we can't really make specific statements.

 

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > >

> > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > >

> > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > >

> > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > >

> > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > >

> > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> >

> > We use GIR to define ball-striking because there's a very strong correlation between how many GIRs a golfer averages and their overall handicap.

> >

> > It's that simple.

> >

>

>

> So what would be the handicap of a golfer that averages 8 greens?

 

Just Google it...there are various studies that've given us good formulas for predicting score based on GIR hit and they're surprisingly accurate.

 

http://probablegolfinstruction.com/golf-scoring-statistics.htm

 

https://Not allowed because of spam.com/2016-report-overall-golfer-performance-by-handicap/

 

Jesus I hate this new format. The last one is from M-y-G-o-l-f-S-p-y so just Google that.

[deadsolid...shank]

I know my last two posts seem very contradictory in regards to GIR. Just to clarify, I do think in most cases it is a useful number (somewhere PineStreetGolf’s Head is spinning and about to explode!) and provides useful information. I just personally like to follow the eye and ear test when I’m watching someone play (because I won’t know how many greens they’re hitting). Like I said earlier, this is more of a target discussion from the main topic.

[MelloYello]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

>

> All true, but as I said above, I’m very non stats oriented, so I don’t need quanatative!?

>

 

So then how do you expect to measure yourself against other golfers?

 

I know. I know.

 

By height.

[deadsolid...shank]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> >

> > All true, but as I said above, I’m very non stats oriented, so I don’t need quanatative!?

> >

>

> So then how do you expect to measure yourself against other golfers?

>

> I know. I know.

>

> By height.

 

 

And I’ve come up short again!

 

Seriously though Mello, the only number I use for comparison to others is score. I have my own “unique” set of numbers I use in evaluating my own game. In one of the other mega threads on this topic it was broached, and kind of named. eGreens or eFairways, anyway, it’s how I do it for myself. I’m counting a ball a foot onto the fringe that gives me a reasonable (there’s another big subjective one) putt, or a ball off the tee that’s in the rough but gives me a good angle and look at the green.

 

Technically both of those were non counting shots for GIR and fairway hit, but for me, they were good shots (maybe even right where I wanted them). But useless for a standard number comparison against another player who looks at it differently.

 

[Golf4lifer]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > > @cliffhanger said:

> > > > > > > from my experience sometimes the smallest of change in lie (downhill/uphill/sidehill) would change my mindset while standing over the shot. No doubt that had an impact on the outcome of the shot. For those who track GIR's it can be the most satisfying or the most humbling stat to track. Fore those who do not, i find it hard to believe they truly understand the reason they score the way they do.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I agree on all counts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It's one thing to stand on a perfectly level driving range (especially on a mat) and time up your swing to the point you're hitting reasonable-looking shots. It's quite another thing to play actual golf where that perfect lie never really happens. Maybe that's one reason why high-handicap range rats claim to have such solid long games? Maybe they haven't been beaten up by the game enough to realize how _"easy"_ the range actually is!?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And yeah, tracking GIR is pretty eye-opening. When you drive it OB and realize you aren't getting a GIR no matter how good the subsequent iron shot is, you realize pretty quickly just how important driving is. And when you miss a GIR with a short-iron in hand you know pretty quickly how much you suck, LOL.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Then again, if you hit a lot of GIRs and still can't score, it's pretty damning evidence that you're neglecting your putting. Neglecting the practice green is _WAAAAAY_ too accepted around here. We should shame people a bit more for that IMHO.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is why I think greens in reg is not a good way to define ball striking. There are so many variables off the tee that can effect your gir numbers. You can hit your target off the tee, but end up in an old divot in the fairway, or get a funny bounce in the fairway and end up behind a tree.

> > > > >

> > > > > Greens in regulation is a humbling stat for sure, but I’ve had some of my best rounds with less than 3 girs.

> > > >

> > > > for me i would say tee shots equate to a loss of 2-3 GIR potentials a round. Given the fact i have 15-16 more opportunities to hit a GIR, i would say that the GIR stat is still the benchmark for iron ball striking. At least with how it relates to me. I also look at how many times i get a GIR when i am in the fairway with an iron in my hand and the percentage isn't much better than my overall average. That way i take the tee shot excuse out of the equation and look only at my iron play.

> > > > When you say you hit less than 3 GIRs with some of your best rounds... how many of those would be GIRs on par 3 holes when the tee shot is your iron shot?

> > >

> > > We use GIR to define ball-striking because there's a very strong correlation between how many GIRs a golfer averages and their overall handicap.

> > >

> > > It's that simple.

> > >

> >

> >

> > Can you show me stats in that? I am really curious.

>

> I’m not a stats person at all (as many here will vouch for), but I do think on most normal or average courses, it is still a decent general indicator of the handicap. The courses I mentioned above, one I consider way outside the ordinary (The Dunes course) and the other (my old home course) a little out of the ordinary range.

>

>

 

I’m really not a stats guy either, but this whole conversation about girs and handicap and ball striking got me curious. I typically play 2 courses regularly one with larger green and my home course with smaller. I think my gir are skewed a little from playing the larger greens course slightly more. It is longer but way easier to hit greens.

[gvogel]

> @"Dr. Hack" said:

> Still getting a kick out of some of these responses. So eager to make fun of the high-handicapped blade users. Can't help but feel there must be some jealousy involved.

>

> I started playing 2 years ago. I'm a 15 hcp now and started using iBlades around 20 hcp. Not true blades, I know, but I use them for the reasons described above by many others.... They're fun to play with and demand good fundamentals. I have learned a lot from using them. Would I suggest this strategy for all people learning golf? Definitely not. But if you're obsessive like I am, you might find it to be a fun challenge and gratifying journey. It makes sense that using more demanding clubs could have benefits. After all, there are training aids in nearly every other sport (heavier bats, smaller balls, etc).

>

>

> **On any given day might you lose a few strokes to the unforgivably of the blades? No doubt. In fact, I play my AP1's when the score counts**. Nobody is trying to make the argument that blades will lead to lower scores with all things being equal. The interesting question to me: Is the same mid/high handicap player better off going into that game because he's been practicing with blades? Do the benefits outweigh the cons when you're talking about a rapid learning curve? I think they could.

 

I love this post. Someone who gets it.