My Experience Gaming Blades as a Mid-High Handicapper

[MelloYello]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > The more I think about it, I'm not sure the _"my course has small greens"_ thing necessarily holds up.

> >

> > If the greens are small where someone plays, that golfer is more likely to ignore the flag and aim for the center of the green thus "increasing the odds" of getting a GIR. So, there's a natural compensation mechanism at work there.

> >

> > People act like having bigger greens matters but on those courses we're usually ignoring large portions of those putting surfaces.

> >

> > It's rare we end up 60-ft from the hole but still on the green. We're much more likely to be somewhere in the proximity of the flag and just off the green.

>

> We can agree to disagree here, but there are two courses here in our small rural area that will showcase exactly that (the last paragraph). If you’re coming in with a short iron or wedge you likely will be in closer proximity to the hole. But put a long club in your hand and there are ample instances of being 60’ away and still on the green. Since we don’t always make pure contact and hit it pin high.

>

> And has to missing the smaller greens more easiy, absolutely true in the example I mentioned. I just don’t know too many players disciplined enough to go for the middle with wedge in hand. The greens I mentioned, several of them are also quite narrow, so even if you play to the middle, if you’re off line but just a few yards, you’re missing the green.

>

> I can’t back any of this up with any stats, just personal experience and observations from these particular courses. It could be different for others.

>

 

Again though, let's keep in mind that stats should only be applied to data sets that are sufficiently-large. So for given round you're absolutely correct.

 

But show me a guy who's consistently missing those small greens when he's got short-irons and wedges and I'll show you a guy who can't adjust his game and therefore isn't the "ball-striker" he claims to be.

 

In the end, this stuff works itself out and that's the point. Everyone is happy to speak anecdotally when they believe it serves them. In truth, a lot of that anecdotal stuff washes out though.

[Golf4lifer]

> @MelloYello said:

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

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > The more I think about it, I'm not sure the _"my course has small greens"_ thing necessarily holds up.

> > >

> > > If the greens are small where someone plays, that golfer is more likely to ignore the flag and aim for the center of the green thus "increasing the odds" of getting a GIR. So, there's a natural compensation mechanism at work there.

> > >

> > > People act like having bigger greens matters but on those courses we're usually ignoring large portions of those putting surfaces.

> > >

> > > It's rare we end up 60-ft from the hole but still on the green. We're much more likely to be somewhere in the proximity of the flag and just off the green.

> >

> > We can agree to disagree here, but there are two courses here in our small rural area that will showcase exactly that (the last paragraph). If you’re coming in with a short iron or wedge you likely will be in closer proximity to the hole. But put a long club in your hand and there are ample instances of being 60’ away and still on the green. Since we don’t always make pure contact and hit it pin high.

> >

> > And has to missing the smaller greens more easiy, absolutely true in the example I mentioned. I just don’t know too many players disciplined enough to go for the middle with wedge in hand. The greens I mentioned, several of them are also quite narrow, so even if you play to the middle, if you’re off line but just a few yards, you’re missing the green.

> >

> > I can’t back any of this up with any stats, just personal experience and observations from these particular courses. It could be different for others.

> >

>

> Again though, let's keep in mind that stats should only be applied to data sets that are sufficiently-large. So for given round you're absolutely correct.

>

> But show me a guy who's consistently missing those small greens when he's got short-irons and wedges and I'll show you a guy who can't adjust his game and therefore isn't the "ball-striker" he claims to be.

>

> In the end, this stuff works itself out and that's the point. Everyone is happy to speak anecdotally when they believe it serves them. In truth, a lot of that anecdotal stuff washes out though.

 

What you are saying isn’t necessarily true. As I mentioned I hit more greens at the course with larger greens based on the stats I keep. I think the number is 6 small to 8 large greens per rounds(don’t have the data in front of me right now), but I typically score the same. At my home course, I will tend to be on the fringe more when I miss. This miss would be firmly on the green at the other course. I am a worst ball striker at my home course because I haven’t adjusted or could it be I just missed by a foot or so?

[deadsolid...shank]

> @MelloYello said:

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

> > > @MelloYello said:

> > > The more I think about it, I'm not sure the _"my course has small greens"_ thing necessarily holds up.

> > >

> > > If the greens are small where someone plays, that golfer is more likely to ignore the flag and aim for the center of the green thus "increasing the odds" of getting a GIR. So, there's a natural compensation mechanism at work there.

> > >

> > > People act like having bigger greens matters but on those courses we're usually ignoring large portions of those putting surfaces.

> > >

> > > It's rare we end up 60-ft from the hole but still on the green. We're much more likely to be somewhere in the proximity of the flag and just off the green.

> >

> > We can agree to disagree here, but there are two courses here in our small rural area that will showcase exactly that (the last paragraph). If you’re coming in with a short iron or wedge you likely will be in closer proximity to the hole. But put a long club in your hand and there are ample instances of being 60’ away and still on the green. Since we don’t always make pure contact and hit it pin high.

> >

> > And has to missing the smaller greens more easiy, absolutely true in the example I mentioned. I just don’t know too many players disciplined enough to go for the middle with wedge in hand. The greens I mentioned, several of them are also quite narrow, so even if you play to the middle, if you’re off line but just a few yards, you’re missing the green.

> >

> > I can’t back any of this up with any stats, just personal experience and observations from these particular courses. It could be different for others.

> >

>

> Again though, let's keep in mind that stats should only be applied to data sets that are sufficiently-large. So for given round you're absolutely correct.

>

> But show me a guy who's consistently missing those small greens when he's got short-irons and wedges and I'll show you a guy who can't adjust his game and therefore isn't the "ball-striker" he claims to be.

>

> In the end, this stuff works itself out and that's the point. Everyone is happy to speak anecdotally when they believe it serves them. In truth, a lot of that anecdotal stuff washes out though.

 

I honestly don’t know who you’re referencing when saying someone is not the ball striker they claim to be. I know it wasn’t me, because I’ve never said anything like that.

 

But I’ll show you an example of one of our greens. They’re not all like this, maybe half, but it’s obviously quite easy to miss if you go hunting a flag.

 

These are old school also, sloped from back to front, so drop offs on the side are from a foot or so up to five or six feet.

 

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @MelloYello said:

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

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > The more I think about it, I'm not sure the _"my course has small greens"_ thing necessarily holds up.

> > > >

> > > > If the greens are small where someone plays, that golfer is more likely to ignore the flag and aim for the center of the green thus "increasing the odds" of getting a GIR. So, there's a natural compensation mechanism at work there.

> > > >

> > > > People act like having bigger greens matters but on those courses we're usually ignoring large portions of those putting surfaces.

> > > >

> > > > It's rare we end up 60-ft from the hole but still on the green. We're much more likely to be somewhere in the proximity of the flag and just off the green.

> > >

> > > We can agree to disagree here, but there are two courses here in our small rural area that will showcase exactly that (the last paragraph). If you’re coming in with a short iron or wedge you likely will be in closer proximity to the hole. But put a long club in your hand and there are ample instances of being 60’ away and still on the green. Since we don’t always make pure contact and hit it pin high.

> > >

> > > And has to missing the smaller greens more easiy, absolutely true in the example I mentioned. I just don’t know too many players disciplined enough to go for the middle with wedge in hand. The greens I mentioned, several of them are also quite narrow, so even if you play to the middle, if you’re off line but just a few yards, you’re missing the green.

> > >

> > > I can’t back any of this up with any stats, just personal experience and observations from these particular courses. It could be different for others.

> > >

> >

> > Again though, let's keep in mind that stats should only be applied to data sets that are sufficiently-large. So for given round you're absolutely correct.

> >

> > But show me a guy who's consistently missing those small greens when he's got short-irons and wedges and I'll show you a guy who can't adjust his game and therefore isn't the "ball-striker" he claims to be.

> >

> > In the end, this stuff works itself out and that's the point. Everyone is happy to speak anecdotally when they believe it serves them. In truth, a lot of that anecdotal stuff washes out though.

>

> What you are saying isn’t necessarily true. As I mentioned I hit more greens at the course with larger greens based on the stats I keep. I think the number is 6 small to 8 large greens per rounds(don’t have the data in front of me right now), but I typically score the same. At my home course, I will tend to be on the fringe more when I miss. This miss would be firmly on the green at the other course. I am a worst ball striker at my home course because I haven’t adjusted or could it be I just missed by a foot or so?

 

I would expect large greens to slightly inflate GIR. I think you're +2 stats (assuming it's based on a sufficient amount of data) is about as much as one would likely see, but that's still just my hunch.

 

When it comes to courses with smaller greens though (1) guys who are routinely hitting wedge in shouldn't be missing those greens regardless of size and (2) guys who are routinely hitting long irons in (to small greens) are making golf too hard and should move up a tee box or two.

[deadsolid...shank]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

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

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > The more I think about it, I'm not sure the _"my course has small greens"_ thing necessarily holds up.

> > > > >

> > > > > If the greens are small where someone plays, that golfer is more likely to ignore the flag and aim for the center of the green thus "increasing the odds" of getting a GIR. So, there's a natural compensation mechanism at work there.

> > > > >

> > > > > People act like having bigger greens matters but on those courses we're usually ignoring large portions of those putting surfaces.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's rare we end up 60-ft from the hole but still on the green. We're much more likely to be somewhere in the proximity of the flag and just off the green.

> > > >

> > > > We can agree to disagree here, but there are two courses here in our small rural area that will showcase exactly that (the last paragraph). If you’re coming in with a short iron or wedge you likely will be in closer proximity to the hole. But put a long club in your hand and there are ample instances of being 60’ away and still on the green. Since we don’t always make pure contact and hit it pin high.

> > > >

> > > > And has to missing the smaller greens more easiy, absolutely true in the example I mentioned. I just don’t know too many players disciplined enough to go for the middle with wedge in hand. The greens I mentioned, several of them are also quite narrow, so even if you play to the middle, if you’re off line but just a few yards, you’re missing the green.

> > > >

> > > > I can’t back any of this up with any stats, just personal experience and observations from these particular courses. It could be different for others.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Again though, let's keep in mind that stats should only be applied to data sets that are sufficiently-large. So for given round you're absolutely correct.

> > >

> > > But show me a guy who's consistently missing those small greens when he's got short-irons and wedges and I'll show you a guy who can't adjust his game and therefore isn't the "ball-striker" he claims to be.

> > >

> > > In the end, this stuff works itself out and that's the point. Everyone is happy to speak anecdotally when they believe it serves them. In truth, a lot of that anecdotal stuff washes out though.

> >

> > What you are saying isn’t necessarily true. As I mentioned I hit more greens at the course with larger greens based on the stats I keep. I think the number is 6 small to 8 large greens per rounds(don’t have the data in front of me right now), but I typically score the same. At my home course, I will tend to be on the fringe more when I miss. This miss would be firmly on the green at the other course. I am a worst ball striker at my home course because I haven’t adjusted or could it be I just missed by a foot or so?

>

> I would expect large greens to slightly inflate GIR. I think you're +2 stats (assuming it's based on a sufficient amount of data) is about as much as one would likely see, but that's still just my hunch.

>

> When it comes to courses with smaller greens though (1) guys who are routinely hitting wedge in shouldn't be missing those greens regardless of size and (2) guys who are routinely hitting long irons in (to small greens) are making golf too hard and should move up a tee box or two.

 

I think that’s a gross generalization. One of the new courses I’m playing as a lot of doglegs. Because they work against my natural shot shape I lay up off the tees quite often, leaving longer irons in. There are a lot or possible reasons why people might nit longer clubs for approaches, and it’s not always because they’re playing too far back.

 

Again for, different course characteristics lead to different results for different people.

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> But I’ll show you an example of one of our greens. They’re not all like this, maybe half, but it’s obviously quite easy to miss if you go hunting a flag.

> These are old school also, sloped from back to front, so drop offs on the side are from a foot or so up to five or six feet.

 

Most courses have one or two greens that are tricky. Maybe yours are particularly so? Still, I would think there would be something to offset that like:

 

(A) you should be given the benefit of a shorter club by the course architect (or through appropriate tee box selection).

 

or

 

(B) your course/slope rating should be high so your handicap isn't destroyed by slightly inflated scores.

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @MelloYello said:

> > > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > > @MelloYello said:

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

> > > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > > The more I think about it, I'm not sure the _"my course has small greens"_ thing necessarily holds up.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If the greens are small where someone plays, that golfer is more likely to ignore the flag and aim for the center of the green thus "increasing the odds" of getting a GIR. So, there's a natural compensation mechanism at work there.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > People act like having bigger greens matters but on those courses we're usually ignoring large portions of those putting surfaces.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It's rare we end up 60-ft from the hole but still on the green. We're much more likely to be somewhere in the proximity of the flag and just off the green.

> > > > >

> > > > > We can agree to disagree here, but there are two courses here in our small rural area that will showcase exactly that (the last paragraph). If you’re coming in with a short iron or wedge you likely will be in closer proximity to the hole. But put a long club in your hand and there are ample instances of being 60’ away and still on the green. Since we don’t always make pure contact and hit it pin high.

> > > > >

> > > > > And has to missing the smaller greens more easiy, absolutely true in the example I mentioned. I just don’t know too many players disciplined enough to go for the middle with wedge in hand. The greens I mentioned, several of them are also quite narrow, so even if you play to the middle, if you’re off line but just a few yards, you’re missing the green.

> > > > >

> > > > > I can’t back any of this up with any stats, just personal experience and observations from these particular courses. It could be different for others.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Again though, let's keep in mind that stats should only be applied to data sets that are sufficiently-large. So for given round you're absolutely correct.

> > > >

> > > > But show me a guy who's consistently missing those small greens when he's got short-irons and wedges and I'll show you a guy who can't adjust his game and therefore isn't the "ball-striker" he claims to be.

> > > >

> > > > In the end, this stuff works itself out and that's the point. Everyone is happy to speak anecdotally when they believe it serves them. In truth, a lot of that anecdotal stuff washes out though.

> > >

> > > What you are saying isn’t necessarily true. As I mentioned I hit more greens at the course with larger greens based on the stats I keep. I think the number is 6 small to 8 large greens per rounds(don’t have the data in front of me right now), but I typically score the same. At my home course, I will tend to be on the fringe more when I miss. This miss would be firmly on the green at the other course. I am a worst ball striker at my home course because I haven’t adjusted or could it be I just missed by a foot or so?

> >

> > I would expect large greens to slightly inflate GIR. I think you're +2 stats (assuming it's based on a sufficient amount of data) is about as much as one would likely see, but that's still just my hunch.

> >

> > When it comes to courses with smaller greens though (1) guys who are routinely hitting wedge in shouldn't be missing those greens regardless of size and (2) guys who are routinely hitting long irons in (to small greens) are making golf too hard and should move up a tee box or two.

>

> I think that’s a gross generalization. One of the new courses I’m playing as a lot of doglegs. Because they work against my natural shot shape I lay up off the tees quite often, leaving longer irons in. There are a lot or possible reasons why people might nit longer clubs for approaches, and it’s not always because they’re playing too far back.

>

> Again for, different course characteristics lead to different results for different people.

>

>

 

Woah, woah, woah. Wait a minute. I'm not trying to pick on you but the fact you can't drive the ball into the appropriate position is now somehow to be ignored? If you're laying up and leaving long-irons in that's totally on you.

 

Sometimes courses are challenging off the tee. That's the case with my current home course. It made me feel like s*** all last year when I started playing it. I had never played a course so penalizing off the tee. I hated it TBH.

 

But if you can't drive the ball where you're supposed to that's going to show in your handicap. That's fair.

[deadsolid...shank]

> @MelloYello said:

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

> > But I’ll show you an example of one of our greens. They’re not all like this, maybe half, but it’s obviously quite easy to miss if you go hunting a flag.

> > These are old school also, sloped from back to front, so drop offs on the side are from a foot or so up to five or six feet.

>

> Most courses have one or two greens that are tricky. Maybe yours are particularly so? Still, I would think there would be something to offset that like:

>

> (A) you should be given the benefit of a shorter club by the course architect (or through appropriate tee box selection).

>

> or

>

> (B) your course/slope rating should be high so your handicap isn't destroyed by slightly inflated scores.

>

>

 

Thats all true, but nowhere relevant to what we’re discussing. Which was GIR’s. I was simply providing an example of a green that it’s relatively easy to miss, even with a short club.

 

 

[MelloYello]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @MelloYello said:

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

> > > But I’ll show you an example of one of our greens. They’re not all like this, maybe half, but it’s obviously quite easy to miss if you go hunting a flag.

> > > These are old school also, sloped from back to front, so drop offs on the side are from a foot or so up to five or six feet.

> >

> > Most courses have one or two greens that are tricky. Maybe yours are particularly so? Still, I would think there would be something to offset that like:

> >

> > (A) you should be given the benefit of a shorter club by the course architect (or through appropriate tee box selection).

> >

> > or

> >

> > (B) your course/slope rating should be high so your handicap isn't destroyed by slightly inflated scores.

> >

> >

>

> Thats all true, but nowhere relevant to what we’re discussing. Which was GIR’s. I was simply providing an example of a green that it’s relatively easy to miss, even with a short club.

>

>

 

Yeah, but is every green like that!?

 

I don't think I'd enjoy playing golf on a course where I wasn't sure I could hit the greens with wedges.

 

If the course designer gave you a green so small you can't safely put a wedge on it, that's tricky. If the whole course is that way he's a dick.

[Golf4lifer]

> @MelloYello said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

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

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > > The more I think about it, I'm not sure the _"my course has small greens"_ thing necessarily holds up.

> > > > >

> > > > > If the greens are small where someone plays, that golfer is more likely to ignore the flag and aim for the center of the green thus "increasing the odds" of getting a GIR. So, there's a natural compensation mechanism at work there.

> > > > >

> > > > > People act like having bigger greens matters but on those courses we're usually ignoring large portions of those putting surfaces.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's rare we end up 60-ft from the hole but still on the green. We're much more likely to be somewhere in the proximity of the flag and just off the green.

> > > >

> > > > We can agree to disagree here, but there are two courses here in our small rural area that will showcase exactly that (the last paragraph). If you’re coming in with a short iron or wedge you likely will be in closer proximity to the hole. But put a long club in your hand and there are ample instances of being 60’ away and still on the green. Since we don’t always make pure contact and hit it pin high.

> > > >

> > > > And has to missing the smaller greens more easiy, absolutely true in the example I mentioned. I just don’t know too many players disciplined enough to go for the middle with wedge in hand. The greens I mentioned, several of them are also quite narrow, so even if you play to the middle, if you’re off line but just a few yards, you’re missing the green.

> > > >

> > > > I can’t back any of this up with any stats, just personal experience and observations from these particular courses. It could be different for others.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Again though, let's keep in mind that stats should only be applied to data sets that are sufficiently-large. So for given round you're absolutely correct.

> > >

> > > But show me a guy who's consistently missing those small greens when he's got short-irons and wedges and I'll show you a guy who can't adjust his game and therefore isn't the "ball-striker" he claims to be.

> > >

> > > In the end, this stuff works itself out and that's the point. Everyone is happy to speak anecdotally when they believe it serves them. In truth, a lot of that anecdotal stuff washes out though.

> >

> > What you are saying isn’t necessarily true. As I mentioned I hit more greens at the course with larger greens based on the stats I keep. I think the number is 6 small to 8 large greens per rounds(don’t have the data in front of me right now), but I typically score the same. At my home course, I will tend to be on the fringe more when I miss. This miss would be firmly on the green at the other course. I am a worst ball striker at my home course because I haven’t adjusted or could it be I just missed by a foot or so?

>

> I would expect large greens to slightly inflate GIR. I think you're +2 stats (assuming it's based on a sufficient amount of data) is about as much as one would likely see, but that's still just my hunch.

>

> When it comes to courses with smaller greens though (1) guys who are routinely hitting wedge in shouldn't be missing those greens regardless of size and (2) guys who are routinely hitting long irons in (to small greens) are making golf too hard and should move up a tee box or two.

 

Do you hit every green when you have a wedge in your hand? I certainly do not and I know some scratch and plus handicaps that don’t. Also how does judging wind account for ball striking? You can hit a wedge/iron/hybrid perfectly on target and have a gust a wind blow it off line. Was that a ball striking error?

 

Based on a chart I found via google, I should be 0 to 5 handicap based on my greens in regulation and am an excellent ball striker. I will say I am far from both!

[bodhi555]

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @MelloYello said:

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

> > > > @MelloYello said:

> > > > The more I think about it, I'm not sure the _"my course has small greens"_ thing necessarily holds up.

> > > >

> > > > If the greens are small where someone plays, that golfer is more likely to ignore the flag and aim for the center of the green thus "increasing the odds" of getting a GIR. So, there's a natural compensation mechanism at work there.

> > > >

> > > > People act like having bigger greens matters but on those courses we're usually ignoring large portions of those putting surfaces.

> > > >

> > > > It's rare we end up 60-ft from the hole but still on the green. We're much more likely to be somewhere in the proximity of the flag and just off the green.

> > >

> > > We can agree to disagree here, but there are two courses here in our small rural area that will showcase exactly that (the last paragraph). If you’re coming in with a short iron or wedge you likely will be in closer proximity to the hole. But put a long club in your hand and there are ample instances of being 60’ away and still on the green. Since we don’t always make pure contact and hit it pin high.

> > >

> > > And has to missing the smaller greens more easiy, absolutely true in the example I mentioned. I just don’t know too many players disciplined enough to go for the middle with wedge in hand. The greens I mentioned, several of them are also quite narrow, so even if you play to the middle, if you’re off line but just a few yards, you’re missing the green.

> > >

> > > I can’t back any of this up with any stats, just personal experience and observations from these particular courses. It could be different for others.

> > >

> >

> > Again though, let's keep in mind that stats should only be applied to data sets that are sufficiently-large. So for given round you're absolutely correct.

> >

> > But show me a guy who's consistently missing those small greens when he's got short-irons and wedges and I'll show you a guy who can't adjust his game and therefore isn't the "ball-striker" he claims to be.

> >

> > In the end, this stuff works itself out and that's the point. Everyone is happy to speak anecdotally when they believe it serves them. In truth, a lot of that anecdotal stuff washes out though.

>

> What you are saying isn’t necessarily true. As I mentioned I hit more greens at the course with larger greens based on the stats I keep. I think the number is 6 small to 8 large greens per rounds(don’t have the data in front of me right now), but I typically score the same. At my home course, I will tend to be on the fringe more when I miss. This miss would be firmly on the green at the other course. I am a worst ball striker at my home course because I haven’t adjusted or could it be I just missed by a foot or so?

 

Sorry sir but you have this completely wrong, bigger targets are only easier to hit if they are the sweetspot of an iron, targets that are like 30 foot bigger than one another are no different in terms of how hard they are to hit. If they are you are doing it wrong.

 

Or something.

 

Ps the above is sarcasm, I agree with you entirely. I am a member at 2 golf courses I play regularly, one with large greens, and one with small greens. Guess which one I regularly get more GIR on?

[deadsolid...shank]

> @MelloYello said:

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

> > > @MelloYello said:

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

> > > > But I’ll show you an example of one of our greens. They’re not all like this, maybe half, but it’s obviously quite easy to miss if you go hunting a flag.

> > > > These are old school also, sloped from back to front, so drop offs on the side are from a foot or so up to five or six feet.

> > >

> > > Most courses have one or two greens that are tricky. Maybe yours are particularly so? Still, I would think there would be something to offset that like:

> > >

> > > (A) you should be given the benefit of a shorter club by the course architect (or through appropriate tee box selection).

> > >

> > > or

> > >

> > > (B) your course/slope rating should be high so your handicap isn't destroyed by slightly inflated scores.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Thats all true, but nowhere relevant to what we’re discussing. Which was GIR’s. I was simply providing an example of a green that it’s relatively easy to miss, even with a short club.

> >

> >

>

> Yeah, but is every green like that!?

>

> I don't think I'd enjoy playing golf on a course where I wasn't sure I could hit the greens with wedges.

>

> If the course designer gave you a green so small you can't safely put a wedge on it, that's tricky. If the whole course is that way he's a ****.

 

No, not at all. I think I said that above. I would agree, it would be overkill for them all to be that way. But it’s part of why I like it, it does make you think if that pin is back. Even with a wedge, it’s only about seven paces across on that back part. We have probably three or four that are similar (in fairness, that probably is the most extreme) in that they have small nodules like that where the area is very small. Then we have a couple that are simply narrow, like 10-12 paces across. The rest are fairly normal, just small.

It is definitely not a long course from the member tees, only about 6,500 yards and at elevation. Tight though, with thick rough which makes holding those greens more difficult with their firmness. Even with short irons in. For an old school parkland style course, I like to think the greens add character to the course.

 

 

[deadsolid...shank]

To showcase the greens I used in my two examples. My old home course, and then the Dunes Course at the Prairie Club. I know it’s hard to compare with pics, but hopefully it provides a little comparison. Very easy at the Dunes (and many new places I expect) to have a 60’ putt.

 

 

[Golf4lifer]

> @MelloYello said:

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

> > > @MelloYello said:

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

> > > > But I’ll show you an example of one of our greens. They’re not all like this, maybe half, but it’s obviously quite easy to miss if you go hunting a flag.

> > > > These are old school also, sloped from back to front, so drop offs on the side are from a foot or so up to five or six feet.

> > >

> > > Most courses have one or two greens that are tricky. Maybe yours are particularly so? Still, I would think there would be something to offset that like:

> > >

> > > (A) you should be given the benefit of a shorter club by the course architect (or through appropriate tee box selection).

> > >

> > > or

> > >

> > > (B) your course/slope rating should be high so your handicap isn't destroyed by slightly inflated scores.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Thats all true, but nowhere relevant to what we’re discussing. Which was GIR’s. I was simply providing an example of a green that it’s relatively easy to miss, even with a short club.

> >

> >

>

> Yeah, but is every green like that!?

>

> I don't think I'd enjoy playing golf on a course where I wasn't sure I could hit the greens with wedges.

>

> If the course designer gave you a green so small you can't safely put a wedge on it, that's tricky. If the whole course is that way he's a ****.

 

There used to a course just like this I played a lot in the past. There where 400 yard par 4 the were relatively straight, but the greens either narrow front to back or left to right. On the dog legs the greens where round but small. The only holes that had mediums sized greens were the par 3’s. We all thought the designer was drunk or hated golf when he or she designed the course it was that hard. I don’t think I ever averaged over 4 greens a round there, but the first time I ever broke 80 was on that course and I don’t think I hit a single green that round. I also loved playing that course as it was a challenge and it made me a better golfer. Too bad it’s a housing development now.

[deadsolid...shank]

> @Golf4lifer said:

> > @MelloYello said:

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

> > > > @MelloYello said:

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

> > > > > But I’ll show you an example of one of our greens. They’re not all like this, maybe half, but it’s obviously quite easy to miss if you go hunting a flag.

> > > > > These are old school also, sloped from back to front, so drop offs on the side are from a foot or so up to five or six feet.

> > > >

> > > > Most courses have one or two greens that are tricky. Maybe yours are particularly so? Still, I would think there would be something to offset that like:

> > > >

> > > > (A) you should be given the benefit of a shorter club by the course architect (or through appropriate tee box selection).

> > > >

> > > > or

> > > >

> > > > (B) your course/slope rating should be high so your handicap isn't destroyed by slightly inflated scores.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Thats all true, but nowhere relevant to what we’re discussing. Which was GIR’s. I was simply providing an example of a green that it’s relatively easy to miss, even with a short club.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Yeah, but is every green like that!?

> >

> > I don't think I'd enjoy playing golf on a course where I wasn't sure I could hit the greens with wedges.

> >

> > If the course designer gave you a green so small you can't safely put a wedge on it, that's tricky. If the whole course is that way he's a ****.

>

> There used to a course just like this I played a lot in the past. There where 400 yard par 4 the were relatively straight, but the greens either narrow front to back or left to right. On the dog legs the greens where round but small. The only holes that had mediums sized greens were the par 3’s. We all thought the designer was drunk or hated golf when he or she designed the course it was that hard. I don’t think I ever averaged over 4 greens a round there, but the first time I ever broke 80 was on that course and I don’t think I hit a single green that round. I also loved playing that course as it was a challenge and it made me a better golfer. Too bad it’s a housing development now.

 

 

Sounds similar. Three of our par three greens are a little bigger. But they are all also in the 190-210 yard range. The shorter par three (although still 190 from the tips) green is quite small. The par fives are very reachable, butagain with small greens designed for short approaches, so your long second shots are tricky, and troublesome recoveries if you miss. It is a course that a pin high miss is not the correct one, Short is always better. But who wants to play short of the pin all day with short clubs!? So you fire at it, miss a little bit, and it gets you!

 

[Golf4lifer]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> > @Golf4lifer said:

> > > @MelloYello said:

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

> > > > > @MelloYello said:

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

> > > > > > But I’ll show you an example of one of our greens. They’re not all like this, maybe half, but it’s obviously quite easy to miss if you go hunting a flag.

> > > > > > These are old school also, sloped from back to front, so drop offs on the side are from a foot or so up to five or six feet.

> > > > >

> > > > > Most courses have one or two greens that are tricky. Maybe yours are particularly so? Still, I would think there would be something to offset that like:

> > > > >

> > > > > (A) you should be given the benefit of a shorter club by the course architect (or through appropriate tee box selection).

> > > > >

> > > > > or

> > > > >

> > > > > (B) your course/slope rating should be high so your handicap isn't destroyed by slightly inflated scores.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Thats all true, but nowhere relevant to what we’re discussing. Which was GIR’s. I was simply providing an example of a green that it’s relatively easy to miss, even with a short club.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Yeah, but is every green like that!?

> > >

> > > I don't think I'd enjoy playing golf on a course where I wasn't sure I could hit the greens with wedges.

> > >

> > > If the course designer gave you a green so small you can't safely put a wedge on it, that's tricky. If the whole course is that way he's a ****.

> >

> > There used to a course just like this I played a lot in the past. There where 400 yard par 4 the were relatively straight, but the greens either narrow front to back or left to right. On the dog legs the greens where round but small. The only holes that had mediums sized greens were the par 3’s. We all thought the designer was drunk or hated golf when he or she designed the course it was that hard. I don’t think I ever averaged over 4 greens a round there, but the first time I ever broke 80 was on that course and I don’t think I hit a single green that round. I also loved playing that course as it was a challenge and it made me a better golfer. Too bad it’s a housing development now.

>

>

> Sounds similar. Three of our par three greens are a little bigger. But they are all also in the 190-210 yard range. The shorter par three (although still 190 from the tips) green is quite small. The par fives are very reachable, butagain with small greens designed for short approaches, so your long second shots are tricky, and troublesome recoveries if you miss. It is a course that a pin high miss is not the correct one, Short is always better. But who wants to play short of the pin all day with short clubs!? So you fire at it, miss a little bit, and it gets you!

>

 

I didn’t mention that 2 of the pars 3 were over 200 unless you played the forward tees and even then they were 190. One was 188 on average and the one short par 3 was 135, but the the green was two tiered the a three foot rise in the middle. Now this green front to back was no more than 60 feet. The par 5’s were reachable, but again small greens. Most of my green in regs were on the par 5’s because I would chip on for my 3rd shot. This course was the same miss short otherwise you are starring double bogey squarely in the mouth.

[pinestreetgolf]

The basic problem with this entire thread is the logical sequence of:

1. High caps should practice with blades because they are more sensitive, and therefore

2. They will get better, as they will feel pure and not pure and therefore

3. They will correct their swing to stop hitting the toe/heel/whatever due to the increased sensitivity.

 

High handicaps can't self-correct a toe hit. They're not good enough. High handicaps need video, not blades, because the mistake a 15 is making isn't to slightly bow the left wrist a half inch too much into impact its that they are standing up a half a foot at impact or some such. People who are that bad have massive structural flaws in their swings. They like to think they are a tweak away because once in a while they hit a tour-level shot, but they're not. They are miles away.

 

Its like telling me somebody who doesn't know how to read should start on Mark Twain instead of Nancy Drew because Mark Twain is more nuanced. It doesn't matter - they can't f*cking read.

 

If you have to say "I feel like it makes me better", it doesn't. If it actually did, you could quantify it, and you'd be a much better ballstriker than you are.

 

Its ludicrous to tell me that blades are a little more sensitive than player's CBs then also tell me that that difference matters to someone trying to get better who has 15 strokes to make up until they can shoot par from the men's tees.

 

I think people should play what they want, the only thing I'm pushing back on is this "harder practice makes easier play" nonsense in case someone reads it and actually thinks its right. That isn't how the human brain learns.

[deadsolid...shank]

Bet reading all this has been driving you nuts PSG, couldn’t hold off on posting any longer?!?

[pinestreetgolf]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

> Bet reading all this has been driving you nuts PSG, couldn’t hold off on posting any longer?!?

 

lol, haven't been at the site, but my digust grew as I read from page 19 to now. I just really, really hope no beginning golfers take this seriously.

 

"Uh, yeah, i think I learn better on blades. The slightly improved feedback at impact has brought me down from a 95 to a 92."

 

What a bunch of absolute nonsense. Of course you get better practicing with blades. But the key word is "practice". You'd get better practicing with anything. if you think you can tell the difference at a 15 between a week of practice with CBs and a week of practice with blades I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you.

[lenman73]

It truly amazes me that golf survived from 1457 until Karsten Solheim opened the doors at PING. The fact that people actually practiced and got better without perimeter weighting , how did that ever happen ?!?!

[MelloYello]

Jesus PSG, LOL, tell us how you _really_ feel!

 

I think we all feel some degree of frustration when discussing the impact of equipment on the score of someone struggling to break 100.

 

We all get a little obsessed with equipment at a certain point. However, I think it's a bad sign if you _start out_ already very equipment-conscious.

[deadsolid...shank]

> @MelloYello said:

> Jesus PSG, LOL, tell us how you _really_ feel!

>

> I think we all feel some degree of frustration when discussing the impact of equipment on the score of someone struggling to break 100.

>

> We all get a little obsessed with equipment at a certain point. However, I think it's a bad sign if you _start out_ already very equipment-conscious.

 

He’s just getting started!?

 

PSG and I have gone round and round over the years. He feels very strongly about this topic

 

[BiggErn]

> @lenman73 said:

> It truly amazes me that golf survived from 1457 until Karsten Solheim opened the doors at PING. The fact that people actually practiced and got better without perimeter weighting , how did that ever happen ?!?!

 

So you use hickory shafts, wooden heads, and a Gutta Percha?

[MelloYello]

> @"deadsolid...shank" said:

>

> He’s just getting started!?

>

> PSG and I have gone round and round over the years. He feels very strongly about this topic

>

 

Good for him. I appreciate that there are some people who will say it like he does. There's an inherent absurdity within certain elements of these threads. Sometimes it's refreshing to see that end of it pulled out into the sunlight.

 

I really don't disagree with anything he said above.

 

Every person alive weights the advice they get according to the reliability of it's source. That's not to say handicap is the only thing that matters but as the old saying goes, _'the empty can rattles the most.'_ So often the folks who chime in to offer their two cents on blades are not exactly expert-level players.

 

 

[BiggErn]

> @MelloYello said:

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

> >

> > He’s just getting started!?

> >

> > PSG and I have gone round and round over the years. He feels very strongly about this topic

> >

>

> Good for him. I appreciate that there are some people who will say it like he does. There's an inherent absurdity within certain elements of these threads. Sometimes it's refreshing to see that end of it pulled out into the sunlight.

>

> I really don't disagree with anything he said above.

>

> Every person alive weights the advice they get according to the reliability of it's source. That's not to say handicap is the only thing that matters but as the old saying goes, _'the empty can rattles the most.'_ So often the folks who chime in to offer their two cents on blades are not exactly expert-level players.

>

>

 

Same can be said about the ones on this forum playing them. Which is odd since most self admit it then go on to do the “empty rattle can” you just described.

[nsxguy]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @lenman73 said:

> > It truly amazes me that golf survived from 1457 until Karsten Solheim opened the doors at PING. The fact that people actually practiced and got better without perimeter weighting , how did that ever happen ?!?!

>

> So you use hickory shafts, wooden heads, and a Gutta Percha?

 

Swear to God, that was my EXACT thought as I read his post !!! LMAO

 

He probably also walks to school every day 5 miles each way in a blizzard too !!! Can you say "horse and buggy" ???

[lenman73]

Per usual, a few peoples predictability does not disappoint. Instead of answering a question, instead post snark. I will ask again. Before the advent of game improvement equipment, how did anyone practice and improve? So every since the ping eye 2 came out, practicing with a blade 7 iron is more of an impossible task than putting someone in the moon. Got it.

 

Another question would be to the people who don't like blades, why not stay out of blade threads ?

I patiently await the snark responses from those who don't like blades but can't stay out of a blade thread.

[BiggErn]

> @lenman73 said:

> Per usual, a few peoples predictability does not disappoint. Instead of answering a question, instead post snark. I will ask again. Before the advent of game improvement equipment, how did anyone practice and improve? So every since the ping eye 2 came out, practicing with a blade 7 iron is more of an impossible task than putting someone in the moon. Got it.

>

> Another question would be to the people who don't like blades, why not stay out of blade threads ?

> I patiently await the snark responses from those who don't like blades but can't stay out of a blade thread.

 

Also per usual someone cherry picks something to attempt to support irrationality. Golf, clubs, and courses were MUCH different back then. You dismiss one aspect of technology yet I bet you use a modern ball, metal woods, and modern shafts. Hypocrite much? Also this isn’t a blade thread. I don’t think anyone ventures in to the enabling one although I do read it for some laughs from time to time.

[MelloYello]

> @lenman73 said:

> Per usual, a few peoples predictability does not disappoint. Instead of answering a question, instead post snark. I will ask again. Before the advent of game improvement equipment, how did anyone practice and improve? So every since the ping eye 2 came out, practicing with a blade 7 iron is more of an impossible task than putting someone in the moon. Got it.

>

> Another question would be to the people who don't like blades, why not stay out of blade threads ?

> I patiently await the snark responses from those who don't like blades but can't stay out of a blade thread.

 

I promise that if you actually read the discussions contained in the pages of this thread you'd find that your questions were not only discussed but resolved in nice and polite ways.

 

I see a good deal of snark and presumption in your post TBH.

[lenman73]

So hitting a blade was easier back then because courses were different. That cleared everything up.

 

Oddly enough I still play alot of the courses I played back when with persimmon woods.