Distance, wins and the Tour, am I way off?

[Titleist99]

25 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Very true.  It’s very odd to me.  And I truly think it’s al in what one practices.     I myself tried to play smash and go golf yesterday and  scored horribly.  After it was over I laughed at myself.  I thought about it and said “ what happens if you dropped a ball at the 150 marker on every par 4 “? I answered myself by saying I’d hit the green and two putt a lot.  Maybe hit one or three close and maybe roll a few putts in.  Easy stress free play.  Instead we’re working from the trees , or trying to side sauce a sand wedge in from 47 yards to a tucked pin.   Missing the putt and laughing at the wasted effort and risk being taken.  

 So yes. Being closer helps some folks.  But to me it’s just added stress to get closer.  And added risk that makes no real sense.  Every time I go down this road , I see big drives in practice , and a lot of tree time in play.  And my scoring average rises.  As it did yesterday.  

Extra distance is no good, if you're only twenty yards further in the woods.....LOL!  Playing bomb and gouge comes with an injury risk....the rough and trees is bad on a players back and wrist. Bryson plays with 37 1/2" wedges which helps him gouge it out better IMO.

[Titleist99]

On 10/23/2020 at 3:03 PM, NRJyzr said:

 

I think it's important to look at the lofts of the clubs involved, not so much the club numbers.  Loft still is the primary determinant of distance for all of us.

 

Specifically when comparing to the past:

People get excited about  BAD hitting a 9i from X distance.  His 9i is 37*.  By comparison, Nicklaus is on record saying he *could* hit an 8i 175 yds, but didn't see the need to.  That puts them a lot closer together than it seems at first glance. 

 

I've also spoken with a former MacGregor rep who claimed to watch Jack hit a 6i from 211 or 221, in response to a crowd reaction for a big hitting amateur in a pro-am.  Take it for what it's worth.  🙂

 

It's one reason I am less excited about any ball rollback.  It was fine when Jack had it in the bag, but now that others do, folks get worked up.

 

Repeating myself:  just cap the driver MOI a lot lower than it is now.  

 

Correct.....It all about the loft on the club......they're jacked up. Today, most clubs come that way. Buy a new set of club if you want to gain ten yards......LOL!

BTW.....these guys are cranking pitching wedges 160+ yards.....

[NRJyzr]

22 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Correct.....It all about the loft on the club......they're jacked up. Today, most clubs come that way. Buy a new set of club if you want to gain ten yards......LOL!

BTW.....these guys are cranking pitching wedges 160+ yards.....

 

Some are for sure.  But, it's worth pointing out, every year, Shotlink shows the Tour average is quite a bit less.  As does the TrackMan Tour average chart that's been been posted many times over the years.  You can't trust what's announced; TV fluffs the clubs used in a lot of instances, and always has.  They've been selling distance for a very long time.  🙂

 

My point isn't really about loft jacking, at least not as its usually discussed.  It's an attempt to point out that when you compare clubs hit today to clubs hit in Ye Olde Days, you really need to look at the lofts instead of the numbers to get the real story. 

 

Look at the 1977 Open Championship... Watson hits 7i from about 180 yds (I've seen 178 and 182 both mentioned, so I'm rounding) for his approach to the final green.  A 1977 Ram Tour Grind 7i is likely the same loft as BAD's PW.

 

Another story... Duval interview in one of the golf mags about 20 years ago.  The Sarazen albatross in the 1935 Masters comes up.  Duval mentions the changes in the game, how Sarazen hit a 4w and that shot "would be a 3 iron now."  A 3i in his Titleist set at the time is about 20*.  Sarazen's 4w in 1935 would have been 20*, maybe even 21*.

 

How about that.  LOL

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by NRJyzr

[Titleist99]

14 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Some are for sure.  But, it's worth pointing out, every year, Shotlink shows the Tour average is quite a bit less.  As does the TrackMan Tour average chart that's been been posted many times over the years.  You can't trust what's announced; TV fluffs the clubs used in a lot of instances, and always has.  They've been selling distance for a very long time.  🙂

 

My point isn't really about loft jacking, at least not as its usually discussed.  It's an attempt to point out that when you compare clubs hit today to clubs hit in Ye Olde Days, you really need to look at the lofts instead of the numbers to get the real story. 

 

Look at the 1977 Open Championship... Watson hits 7i from about 180 yds (I've seen 178 and 182 both mentioned, so I'm rounding) for his approach to the final green.  A 1977 Ram Tour Grind 7i is likely the same loft as BAD's PW.

 

Another story... Duval interview in one of the golf mags about 20 years ago.  The Sarazen albatross in the 1935 Masters comes up.  Duval mentions the changes in the game, how Sarazen hit a 4w and that shot "would be a 3 iron now."  A 3i in his Titleist set at the time is about 20*.  Sarazen's 4w in 1935 would have been 20*, maybe even 21*.

 

How about that.  LOL

 

You are completely spot on. Add the fact that todays golfers can optimize loft, spin rate, launch angle. etc.....etc....with Trackman and launch monitors. 

 

The PGATOUR sells distance all the time.....imagine trying to sell less distance to a golfing public that average 210 yards of the tee and 90% of them can't break 90. Good luck with that!.....LOL!

[bladehunter]

4 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Remember that the "closer is better" approach assumes that you still end up with clear shots to the pin.  If the combination of dispersion and hazards (trees, water, deep rough, etc...) is causing lost strokes then you have to back off.  The other assumption is that you are somewhat proficient executing short pitches.  Finally, most of the benefit is acquired by getting a scoring wedge in your hands for the approach shot (the proximity curve flattens a bit once you are inside 125 or 100 depending on your length).

Right.  Yet I don’t  frequent any courses where this is really optional.   Any course built before say 1997 is usually not open enough for me to see anyway this makes sense.      
 

and I’m pretty proficient from 100 and in. I have a wedge range at home that has 90 - 75 - 50 and 40 yard targets. Those targets being the size of a 5 gallon bucket.  And yet.  I still prefer a full pw in my hand. And that’s 120-140 yards depending on flight and shape.  
 

my fairways hit stat went from 83 % for the year to 65% for the round yesterday.    And that’s with only 2 hit with driver.  We have several forced layups off the tee. But hey. Pitching out sideways to leave a 65 yard 3rd must be better !  Lol 

 

the thing about stats is that you can always make them say almost anything.  I just don’t buy it as being gospel.  Not unless you’re on a course with wide open spaces.  

Edited October 25, 2020 by bladehunter

[ThinkingPlus]

8 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Right.  Yet I don’t  frequent any courses where this is really optional.   Any course built before say 1997 is usually not open enough for me to see anyway this makes sense.      
 

and I’m pretty proficient from 100 and in. I have a wedge range at home that has 90 - 75 - 50 and 40 yard targets. Those targets being the size of a 5 gallon bucket.  And yet.  I still prefer a full pw in my hand. And that’s 120-140 yards depending on flight and shape.  
 

my fairways hit stat went from 83 % for the year to 65% for the round yesterday.    And that’s with only 2 hit with driver.  We have several forced layups off the tee. But hey. Pitching out sideways to leave a 65 yard 3rd must be better !  Lol 

 

the thing about stats is that you can always make them say almost anything.  I just don’t buy it as being gospel.  Not unless you’re on a course with wide open spaces.  

Having nothing, but tree lined courses to play is unfortunate.  Also forced layups are very frustrating.  In both cases a designer is dictating how to play the golf course which is wrong in so many ways.  The bottom line is where you play, the courses make bomb and gouge a poor strategy.  Countrywide that is somewhat unusual, but certainly not uncommon.

[bladehunter]

2 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Having nothing, but tree lined courses to play is unfortunate.  Also forced layups are very frustrating.  In both cases a designer is dictating how to play the golf course which is wrong in so many ways.  The bottom line is where you play, the courses make bomb and gouge a poor strategy.  Countrywide that is somewhat unusual, but certainly not uncommon.

I guess.  I suppose I long for these 60 yard wide places folks get to play where hitting it crooked is ok.    Truth is it was also to first round with a new driver combo that I had been punishing in practice.  
 

but.  There’s something  quite stressful about swing hard that I don’t like.  It does me a disservice mentally for some reason.  Maybe it’s an obstacle I could overcome. But I don’t know.  I very much prefer swinging silky smooth and knowing where it’s going .  

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I guess.  I suppose I long for these 60 yard wide places folks get to play where hitting it crooked is ok.    Truth is it was also to first round with a new driver combo that I had been punishing in practice.  
 

but.  There’s something  quite stressful about swing hard that I don’t like.  It does me a disservice mentally for some reason.  Maybe it’s an obstacle I could overcome. But I don’t know.  I very much prefer swinging silky smooth and knowing where it’s going .  

Everyone has a different comfort level vis-a-vis risk/reward.  I also tend to be more conservative.  I really hate not having any chance of getting it to the green.  However, if I have generous landing areas on shorter holes I now go ahead and hit driver.  I also do the same on holes where laying back outside 150 still results in alot of bogeys.  I can make bogey from the trees just as easy.

[nsxguy]

27 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Right.  Yet I don’t  frequent any courses where this is really optional.   Any course built before say 1997 is usually not open enough for me to see anyway this makes sense.      
 

and I’m pretty proficient from 100 and in. I have a wedge range at home that has 90 - 75 - 50 and 40 yard targets. Those targets being the size of a 5 gallon bucket.  And yet.  I still prefer a full pw in my hand. And that’s 120-140 yards depending on flight and shape.  
 

 

 

Sometimes your posts really confuse me.

 

You seem to be suggesting that most every driving hole or every par 5 layup gets continually tighter the further you hit it so you HAVE to lay back a bit. Those are some unusual courses.

 

Further, you seem to be suggesting you're better at hitting it closer from inside 90 yards than with your full PW ("And yet") BUT you somehow "feel more comfortable" hitting a full PW. I don't get that at all. 

 

IS your proximity to the hole better with a full PW ? Or are you more often closer from 90-75-50-40 ?

[pinhigh27]

5 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Very true.  It’s very odd to me.  And I truly think it’s al in what one practices.     I myself tried to play smash and go golf yesterday and  scored horribly.  After it was over I laughed at myself.  I thought about it and said “ what happens if you dropped a ball at the 150 marker on every par 4 “? I answered myself by saying I’d hit the green and two putt a lot.  Maybe hit one or three close and maybe roll a few putts in.  Easy stress free play.  Instead we’re working from the trees , or trying to side sauce a sand wedge in from 47 yards to a tucked pin.   Missing the putt and laughing at the wasted effort and risk being taken.  

 So yes. Being closer helps some folks.  But to me it’s just added stress to get closer.  And added risk that makes no real sense.  Every time I go down this road , I see big drives in practice , and a lot of tree time in play.  And my scoring average rises.  As it did yesterday.  

You'd miss the green from 150 as a scratch golfer more than you make birdie. PGA tour player from 150 in fairway takes like 2.9 shots on average to hole the ball. 3.16 from rough. 

 

I don't know what you mean by no real sense. As you get closer to the hole, the expected strokes to hole the ball decreases. 

Edited October 25, 2020 by pinhigh27

[bladehunter]

16 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sometimes your posts really confuse me.

 

You seem to be suggesting that most every driving hole or every par 5 layup gets continually tighter the further you hit it so you HAVE to lay back a bit. Those are some unusual courses.

 

Further, you seem to be suggesting you're better at hitting it closer from inside 90 yards than with your full PW ("And yet") BUT you somehow "feel more comfortable" hitting a full PW. I don't get that at all. 

 

IS your proximity to the hole better with a full PW ? Or are you more often closer from 90-75-50-40 ?

What I’m saying is that getting inside 90 and in the fairway is a real rarity.  But I can 3 wood or hit irons to have a pw in almost automatically.   I practice those shots becudse I like them.  And because you need them on par 5s if forced to layup due t a poor tee ball.  
 

yes. Farther  past 150 you go the more Issues. I assumed most courses are this way ?  Why wouldn’t the trouble Be where everyone wants to hit it ?  Are you also saying that a guy would be home free with a 300 carry on your Normal tracks ?  That seems crazy to me ! ( not claiming to average that by the way ....I don’t hit drivers often enough to know ).  Do the courses you guys play not have OB running along the fairway ? Or water ? 
 

the layups im talking about are doglegs at 245 , forced irons off the tee etc. 

 

 

[bladehunter]

21 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

You'd miss the green from 150 as a scratch golfer more than you make birdie. PGA tour player from 150 in fairway takes like 2.9 shots on average to hole the ball. 3.16 from rough. 

 

I don't know what you mean by no real sense. As you get closer to the hole, the expected strokes to hole the ball decreases. 

Please let me preface this by saying. I mean now harm.  But.  That’s the captain obvious statement of the year.  
 

now I realize you haven’t played with me.  But as much improved of a putter as I am , I still get way more great looks at birdie than i ever make.  I survive on 2 putt birdies or pitch and tap in birdies on par 5s.  Period.  I need 3 of them a round and hole 1 putt to get my birdie quota.  Every on e in a blue moon I’ll go in a rampage and hole 6-7 putts in a row , for whatever reason.  But most of my game is “ hit fairway.  Hit green . 2 putt repeat “.  Bad rounds are almost always due to 3 putts.  And good rounds due to a hot putter.  
 

I know the tour stats. But what you’re not considering is situational differences.  Give a tour guy like JT or tiger a pw.  Telll them to hit 18 greens with it and most of the time they will.  Tell them to hit it tight and they’ll miss some being aggressive.  Then tell them to score to protect a lead , and they’ll miss more due to expectation and pressure.  
 

this idea that hitting a 40 square foot target with a pw is hard is nonsense.  But that’s beside the point.  Hitting the green doesn’t get you any points.  
 

hitorng that green with a lob wedge or a pitching wedge won’t make the putt go in.  

[pinhigh27]

the lob wedge will be closer on average than the pitching wedge, resulting in a significantly increased change of making the putt and making birdie. 

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, bladehunter said:

What I’m saying is that getting inside 90 and in the fairway is a real rarity.  But I can 3 wood or hit irons to have a pw in almost automatically.   I practice those shots becudse I like them.  And because you need them on par 5s if forced to layup due t a poor tee ball.  
 

yes. Farther  past 150 you go the more Issues. I assumed most courses are this way ?  Why wouldn’t the trouble Be where everyone wants to hit it ?  Are you also saying that a guy would be home free with a 300 carry on your Normal tracks ?  That seems crazy to me ! ( not claiming to average that by the way ....I don’t hit drivers often enough to know ).  Do the courses you guys play not have OB running along the fairway ? Or water ? 
 

the layups im talking about are doglegs at 245 , forced irons off the tee etc. 

 

 

 

Good grief blade.

 

Didn't I make it clear I understand your problem is to GET IT closer than PW ? That the risk to do so isn't worth the reward ? If not, my bad.

 

So let me try asking one more time. 

 

IS your proximity to the hole better with a full PW ? Or are you more often closer from 90-75-50-40 ?

[bladehunter]

39 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Good grief blade.

 

Didn't I make it clear I understand your problem is to GET IT closer than PW ? That the risk to do so isn't worth the reward ? If not, my bad.

 

So let me try asking one more time. 

 

IS your proximity to the hole better with a full PW ? Or are you more often closer from 90-75-50-40 ?

Officially?  The sample size for under 100 yards is so small I couldn’t say.  I literally aim at 150 markers , and after some roll I End up hitting a lot of full pitching wedges in.  Usually doable with a 3 wood or 3 iron off the tee.  
 

I think this whole closer is better thing or the more loft the closer you’ll hit it thing isn’t as singularly True as most think.  It’s two part.  You have to first hit driver as accurately as 3 wood or 3 iron , AND regularly 20 yards longer than 3 wood. Otherwise the closer is better doesn’t bare any fruit.  
so yes. Dropping it out of your pocket , closer is better.  
 

But when you compare 83 % fairways hit with 3 wood down to a driver that if hit for distance is much less accurate , the proximity numbers for lob wedge vs pitching wedge are going to come out a wash at best.  You have to get the high traj / low spin bomb driver to work accurately first.  Otherwise the lob wedge never happens.  It’s the 5 iron from under the tree that happens.  

[nsxguy]

1 minute ago, bladehunter said:

Officially?  The sample size for under 100 yards is so small I couldn’t say.  I literally aim at 150 markers , and after some roll I End up hitting a lot of full pitching wedges in.  Usually doable with a 3 wood or 3 iron off the tee.  
 

I think this whole closer is better thing or the more loft the closer you’ll hit it thing isn’t as singularly True as most think.  It’s two part.  You have to first hit driver as accurately as 3 wood or 3 iron , AND regularly 20 yards longer than 3 wood. Otherwise the closer is better doesn’t bare any fruit.  
so yes. Dropping it out of your pocket , closer is better.  
 

But when you compare 83 % fairways hit with 3 wood down to a driver that if hit for distance is much less accurate , the proximity numbers for lob wedge vs pitching wedge are going to come out a wash at best.  You have to get the high traj / low spin bomb driver to work accurately first.  Otherwise the lob wedge never happens.  It’s the 5 iron from under the tree that happens.  

 

OK, an "I don't know".

 

Got it. 👍

[bladehunter]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

OK, an "I don't know".

 

Got it. 👍

Lol. I think I tried to say that 3 times now.  
 

I don’t think it can be known for any one person until that one person tracks it for a long length of time.  The stats tell you for a herd of folks.  But they don’t tell you if the strategy produces lower scores for every  person.  

[nsxguy]

8 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Lol. I think I tried to say that 3 times now.  
 

I don’t think it can be known for any one person until that one person tracks it for a long length of time.  The stats tell you for a herd of folks.  But they don’t tell you if the strategy produces lower scores for every  person.  

 

Frankly I don't believe a long time is needed. And I've never been a "stats guy". And while a long time is always best for the "laws of average", some things can be seen quite easily and/or much more quickly.

 

For MANY years I would only go for the green on a par 5 when I stood a reasonable chance of actually hitting it in 2. If I KNEW I couldn't get there I'd lay back to a full PW.

 

I was convinced right here on WRX that wasn't the smart play so about 3 or 4 years ago I began getting as close as possible (when the risk was worth it).

 

As I said, I don't keep stats, but I am very sure I've been getting far more and better looks at birdie,,,,,,,, with only the odd shot in a bad place where the next shot was really trouble.

[ThinkingPlus]

31 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Officially?  The sample size for under 100 yards is so small I couldn’t say.  I literally aim at 150 markers , and after some roll I End up hitting a lot of full pitching wedges in.  Usually doable with a 3 wood or 3 iron off the tee.  
 

I think this whole closer is better thing or the more loft the closer you’ll hit it thing isn’t as singularly True as most think.  It’s two part.  You have to first hit driver as accurately as 3 wood or 3 iron , AND regularly 20 yards longer than 3 wood. Otherwise the closer is better doesn’t bare any fruit.  
so yes. Dropping it out of your pocket , closer is better.  
 

But when you compare 83 % fairways hit with 3 wood down to a driver that if hit for distance is much less accurate , the proximity numbers for lob wedge vs pitching wedge are going to come out a wash at best.  You have to get the high traj / low spin bomb driver to work accurately first.  Otherwise the lob wedge never happens.  It’s the 5 iron from under the tree that happens.  

The proximity being better when you are closer has almost nothing to do with club.  It isn't that you are way more accurate swinging a sand wedge rather than 8 iron.  It is because your angular dispersion is roughly the same with most irons.  So closer is better because proximity = angular error × distance + distance error.  Assuming you hit all your short irons and wedges equally solid with no gapping problems, your distance error will be similar between clubs so proximity ~ distance of shot.  Your home course may be too risky to hit lots of drivers which is not unreasonable, but closer is better for all good players and most others.

[bladehunter]

13 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The proximity being better when you are closer has almost nothing to do with club.  It isn't that you are way more accurate swinging a sand wedge rather than 8 iron.  It is because your angular dispersion is roughly the same with most irons.  So closer is better because proximity = angular error × distance + distance error.  Assuming you hit all your short irons and wedges equally solid with no gapping problems, your distance error will be similar between clubs so proximity ~ distance of shot.  Your home course may be too risky to hit lots of drivers which is not unreasonable, but closer is better for all good players and most others.

So.   To us dumb folks ( being serious ) , you’re saying side to side dispersion angle is roughly the same , and the farther the ball flies on that line the farther off target it is?   I get that.  That’s the exact same thing I’m saying with driver.  
 

I’m not saying that on a wide open course , driver isn’t better. I’m saying I don’t know of any wide open courses.  I live in the land of trees.  Big old growth trees. Which is also likely why my opinion on distance is so plain to see for me and so foreign to some. I guess if I could play treeless courses with no OB I’d try to be a long drive guy too. 

[jvincent]

Has anyone in this thread actually read Mark Broadie's book? Statistically, closer is always better. The one caveat is that if trying to get closer brings a hazard into play.

 

For giggles, here is some Arccos data that confirms the same thing.

 

AVERAGE DISTANCE TO THE PIN ON APPROACH FROM 60-80 YARDS
0-5 handicap: 41.38 feet
6-10 handicap: 45.20 feet
11-15 handicap: 50.49 feet
16-20 handicap: 55.21 yards
20+ handicap: 62.43 feet

AVERAGE DISTANCE TO THE PIN ON APPROACH FROM 100-120 YARDS
0-5 handicap: 48.82 feet
6-10 handicap: 54.56 feet
11-15 handicap: 61.85 feet
16-20 handicap: 70.76 feet
20+ handicap: 83.46 feet

 

[ThinkingPlus]

1 minute ago, bladehunter said:

So.   To us dumb folks ( being serious ) , you’re saying side to side dispersion angle is roughly the same , and the farther the ball flies on that line the farther off target it is?   I get that.  That’s the exact same thing I’m saying with driver.  
 

I’m not saying that on a wide open course , driver isn’t better. I’m saying I don’t know of any wide open courses.  I live in the land of trees.  Big old growth trees. Which is also likely why my opinion on distance is so plain to see for me and so foreign to some. I guess if I could play treeless courses with no OB I’d try to be a long drive guy too. 

Yes and you are right about driver vs. 3W.  If clubs fit you well, then your side to side dispersion should be the same.  It would only be further offline because you hit the ball further.

[Titleist99]

16 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The proximity being better when you are closer has almost nothing to do with club.  It isn't that you are way more accurate swinging a sand wedge rather than 8 iron.  It is because your angular dispersion is roughly the same with most irons.  So closer is better because proximity = angular error × distance + distance error.  Assuming you hit all your short irons and wedges equally solid with no gapping problems, your distance error will be similar between clubs so proximity ~ distance of shot.  Your home course may be too risky to hit lots of drivers which is not unreasonable, but closer is better for all good players and most others.

LOL!....sound like mumble Jumble to me.....golf sure has changed and people are drinking Bryson DeChambeau Kool-aid. Until recently 100 yards in the middle of the fairway was better than 80 yards in the rough. From the fairway you can spin the ball and control it. From the rough it's a crap shoot. From the rough you're hitting over bunkers etc,,, My how golf has changed....

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

LOL!....sound like mumble Jumble to me.....golf sure has changed and people are drinking Bryson DeChambeau Kool-aid. Until recently 100 yards in the middle of the fairway was better than 80 yards in the rough. From the fairway you can spin the ball and control it. From the rough it's a crap shoot. From the rough you're hitting over bunkers etc,,, My how golf has changed....

Actually golf hasn't changed.  We just understand it better today.

[Titleist99]

6 minutes ago, jvincent said:

Has anyone in this thread actually read Mark Broadie's book? Statistically, closer is always better. The one caveat is that if trying to get closer brings a hazard into play.

 

For giggles, here is some Arccos data that confirms the same thing.

 

AVERAGE DISTANCE TO THE PIN ON APPROACH FROM 60-80 YARDS
0-5 handicap: 41.38 feet
6-10 handicap: 45.20 feet
11-15 handicap: 50.49 feet
16-20 handicap: 55.21 yards
20+ handicap: 62.43 feet

AVERAGE DISTANCE TO THE PIN ON APPROACH FROM 100-120 YARDS
0-5 handicap: 48.82 feet
6-10 handicap: 54.56 feet
11-15 handicap: 61.85 feet
16-20 handicap: 70.76 feet
20+ handicap: 83.46 feet

 

Hazards and penalty areas are always in play if you call the rough a hazard......LOL!

[Titleist99]

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Actually golf hasn't changed.  We just understand it better today.

Then tell me how my post is Flawed.....

[nsxguy]

6 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

LOL!....sound like mumble Jumble to me.....golf sure has changed and people are drinking Bryson DeChambeau Kool-aid. Until recently 100 yards in the middle of the fairway was better than 80 yards in the rough. From the fairway you can spin the ball and control it. From the rough it's a crap shoot. From the rough you're hitting over bunkers etc,,, My how golf has changed....

 

I believe the expression is "Mumbo Jumbo" but who's surprised at you using "mumble Jumble" given your penchant for moving the goal posts.

 

*I* will tell you how your post is flawed. AGAIN. 

 

So now it 100 in the FAIRWAY vs. 80 in the rough ??? I guess I missed it (again ?) Who said anything about comparing different parts of the course ?

 

You'll just use whatever you can come up with the be <cough> right <cough> 

 

Just more spam from you. 

 

[nsxguy]

18 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

So.   To us dumb folks ( being serious ) , you’re saying side to side dispersion angle is roughly the same , and the farther the ball flies on that line the farther off target it is?   I get that.  That’s the exact same thing I’m saying with driver.  
 

I’m not saying that on a wide open course , driver isn’t better. I’m saying I don’t know of any wide open courses.  I live in the land of trees.  Big old growth trees. Which is also likely why my opinion on distance is so plain to see for me and so foreign to some. I guess if I could play treeless courses with no OB I’d try to be a long drive guy too. 

 

But the thread is (primarily) about distance being an advantage.

 

Don't you see that where *I* would have to hit driver to get near that pond in the middle of the fairway that YOU might only need to hit a 3 iron to get to the same stop ? Who hits a driver straighter than a 3 iron ? Nobody I know.

 

And that's not including that once we're both there, in roughly the same spot, YOU have an 8 iron in where I have a 6 or a 5.

 

Isn't length STILL a big advantage ? Even WITH obstacles dead in front of you or even with tree lined fairways ?

[Titleist99]

5 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I believe the expression is "Mumbo Jumbo" but who's surprised at you using "mumble Jumble" given your penchant for moving the goal posts.

 

*I* will tell you how your post is flawed. AGAIN. 

 

So now it 100 in the FAIRWAY vs. 80 in the rough ??? I guess I missed it (again ?) Who said anything about comparing different parts of the course ?

 

You'll just use whatever you can come up with the be <cough> right <cough> 

 

Just more spam from you. 

 

I know when a poster has nothing.......they resort to spelling and punctuation on a golf board.

With all due respect....

[nsxguy]

6 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

I know when a poster has nothing.......they resort to spelling and punctuation on a golf board.

With all due respect....

 

Except that I didn't (really) correct your spelling OR your punctuation. But then you're not becoming know for your accuracy. 

 

When a poster has nothing he'll reply to the non-important parts of a post, like YOU just did.

 

You know, the old "Look at the pretty bunny over there" trick. 

 

I refuted your post by showing how you move the goalposts - by going to "rough vs. fairway" in an attempt to "save" yourself.

 

I'd say "Nice try" but,,,,,,,, well,,,,,,, it really wasn't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited October 26, 2020 by nsxguy