skill level truly defined by consistency ?

[Fairway14]

A friend of mine likes to say "anyone can shoot a low round". His point is that on a given day, for different reasons, many players are able to shoot a low score, and that the occasional low round does not mean much (to him).

Last week were talking about the 15 year old aspiring college player daughter of a mutual friend. When she shoots one of her (rare) low scores of 72 her dad's friends tell him "she is the real deal, she is great". But the reality is that she shoots lots of scores in the 80's and her scoring average is probably about 81 or 82. 

And some wealthy celebrity athletes with lots of time for golf seem to be in this category as well. Romo or Curry can on occasion shoot 68 but often shoot 85 as well.

I agree with my friend here and think consistency is much harder to achieve than is every once in awhile shooting a low score.

[MtlJeff]

Sure i think almost anyone would agree with that. Rocco Mediate once said that at his private club there's a bunch of scratch dudes that could beat him once on any given day, but over time he obviously crushes all of them because his bad rounds are 72 and theirs are 83. 

 

It's funny you mention Steph Curry, i think a lot of people don't understand this about golf. Last year one of my friends who's a huge NBA fan was ribbing me a bit saying "Curry isn't even a pro golfer but he beat like 10 pros" (in the tournament he played in). So he was suggesting that golfers weren't really all that great, and Steph could be the best player in the world if he just practiced golf instead of hoops

 

I tried to explain that in a field of 125 people, finishing last is hard. Someone will always play "their worst round". So if Steph shoot a really good round for him (73), chances are 3-4 pros will play their worst round of the year and he will beat them. Not many people understand this

 

I told my friend if Steph played on the web.com tour he would earn 0 dollars. Golf is as much about how bad your bad rounds are, vs how good your good ones are

[RRFireblade]

It's all about consistency but the "rare low score" comment sounds like pure sour grapes. It's takes 18 holes of consistency to shoot a really low score. And it also shows potential, it's not like one is getting lucky 60 or 70 shots in row. I don't think "anyone" can just do it. It's just that long term consistency requires more coverage area then just the swings in a single round of golf. Some of those things may even be outside of ones mean to control.  IMO, historically, there are two types of golfers. The rocks that produce pretty consistently over time and the rubber bands that are up and down. I'm always more afraid of the rubber bands because they tend to go really low when you least expect it. Set records and steal the money on Sunday. 🙂  Making a lot of cuts but never winning is nice but winning a major out of nowhere doesn't suck too bad either. Feel like I'd take one cut and win if I had a choice. 😉 Maybe.

[Lefty_3Jack]

Saying Tony Romo shoots 85 "often" is likely inaccurate.  I looked him up on GHIN and didn't see any 85's but he also doesn't post much either.  If you're a + handicap you're not shooting in the 80's "often".  

 

I've always said I'd rather be that 3 handicap that consistently shoots 75-80 than someone who could go low one day and have a really bad day.  Now I am that guy and I'm wishing "I hit it further so I could play tougher tees" and "if I could only one putt more I could get into the 60's and drop closer to being a +".  FYI you'll never be satisfied with your game.  

 

Regarding if someone is truly good or just a pretty good player I'd say it starts with tournament play.  I don't consider myself a good player @ a 2.9 right now because none of those rounds are tournament play.  I stopped posting rounds that I play by myself and I've seen some good young players only post rounds that are in tournament play.  If you find someone who is a + handicap and it's only tournament rounds that's the real deal.

[Sean2]

22 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

A friend of mine likes to say "anyone can shoot a low round". His point is that on a given day, for different reasons, many players are able to shoot a low score, and that the occasional low round does not mean much (to him).

Last week were talking about the 15 year old aspiring college player daughter of a mutual friend. When she shoots one of her (rare) low scores of 72 her dad's friends tell him "she is the real deal, she is great". But the reality is that she shoots lots of scores in the 80's and her scoring average is probably about 81 or 82. 

And some wealthy celebrity athletes with lots of time for golf seem to be in this category as well. Romo or Curry can on occasion shoot 68 but often shoot 85 as well.

I agree with my friend here and think consistency is much harder to achieve than is every once in awhile shooting a low score.

A bit of a segue here, but I see this often with juniors...parents for example telling the kid how great they are, when in reality they aren't THAT good. A friend of mine is an instructor (his daughter plays on the LPGA Tour and he has been her only coach), and one time he had a new student and the father asked how her swing was. He said it was terrible. The father thanked him as everyone was telling her how great it was. After working with my friend she ended up one of the top players in the state, and received a golf scholarship. 

 

I guess the point is, a lot of people don't really know what good is. And it seems today we have a tendency to heap praise when it isn't warranted. This actually does a disservice to the child (in this instance), as at some point he or she will learn that all that praise was not indicative of reality, and sets them up for disappointment. 

[Fairway14]

11 minutes ago, Sean2 said:

 

 

I guess the point is, a lot of people don't really know what good is. And it seems today we have a tendency to heap praise when it isn't warranted. This actually does a disservice to the child (in this instance), as at some point he or she will learn that all that praise was not indicative of reality, and sets them up for disappointment. 

 

In this case the friends of the girl's dad definitely understand high skill level golf and what it takes. I think the reason they are so complementary to her is because she is only 15 and sometimes senior adults believe "positive reinforcement" is always the right thing to do. I certainly agree with you that too much praise can be counter productive and ultimately, as you wrote , a "disservice". 

If she were my daughter I would probably sign her up with the most competent instructor I could find and tell her to only listen to golf stuff from that instructor. Hopefully the instructor would be good enough to not only teach effective technique, but also motivate her to practice more and more.

 

[SNIPERBBB]

It's what makes our team money games interesting here. 

 

I used to be the B player that could shoot 75 or 85. If I got stuck as being an A for that day, I needed to be the best A available that day to have a chance of winning, or at least be able to get the first pick in the draw.

 

Now I'm more of the 70-75 guy and 80 is a disaster round.

 

Anybody with a reliable shot shape and decent length and knows how to properly aim for said shape can pull a even par +- a few strokes and be on that day. What makes a guy more consistent is the ability to either grind out pars like a mad man or make a ton of birdies.

 

If you're scrambling % is 50% or better, the worst you can do is 81 on a par 72 sans penalty strokes and chunked/topped shots that don't significantly advance the ball and three putts

Edited November 29, 2020 by SNIPERBBB

[Dan Drake]

I agree with @RRFireblade here.

 

Also, I want to add one quick thing to the discussion:  Almost every golfer that I have looked up via GHIN, for tournaments or whatever, has a speed of about 15 strokes between their lowest and highest scores in their most recent 20 scores.  PGA pros and 30 'caps alike, anything better than that is a sign of a "special" golfer, either in their skill level relative to their handicap or their flexible relationship with the rules of golf.  

 

"Consistency," whether in regards to someone's ability to hit golf shots of a repeatable nature or their ability to shoot scores within a certain range, just doesn't exist the way that most golfers think it does.  

 

That said, give me the student who can shoot 67, but also shoots 82, and I believe I can coach them up to lower both of those numbers (especially the 82's!) far enough to get to their next level.  Someone who throws a bunch of low to mid 70's at it likely has reached a certain part of their ceiling and needs to improve a significant portion of their game to shift their scoring spread meaningfully lower.  

[Obee]

2 hours ago, Dan Drake said:

I agree with @RRFireblade here.

 

Also, I want to add one quick thing to the discussion:  Almost every golfer that I have looked up via GHIN, for tournaments or whatever, has a speed of about 15 strokes between their lowest and highest scores in their most recent 20 scores.  PGA pros and 30 'caps alike, anything better than that is a sign of a "special" golfer, either in their skill level relative to their handicap or their flexible relationship with the rules of golf.  

 

"Consistency," whether in regards to someone's ability to hit golf shots of a repeatable nature or their ability to shoot scores within a certain range, just doesn't exist the way that most golfers think it does.  

 

That said, give me the student who can shoot 67, but also shoots 82, and I believe I can coach them up to lower both of those numbers (especially the 82's!) far enough to get to their next level.  Someone who throws a bunch of low to mid 70's at it likely has reached a certain part of their ceiling and needs to improve a significant portion of their game to shift their scoring spread meaningfully lower.  

 

Hola Dan! I think there's another way of looking at "consistency" for golfers. You're right, almost everyone has one or two scores that are 15 (or more) strokes above their best, thought not necessarily in the "last 20." A better(?) way to look at consistency is probably the good ol' "anti-handicap." In the old days, that was the average differential of the 10 WORST scores of the last 20. The new way would be the average of the worst 12, since we now only use 8 of the last 20 to derive our index and throw out the other 12.

 

I'd actually love to see some numbers on that. Curious to see just how divergent they can be.

[MonteScheinblum]

@RRFireblade and @Sean2 are correct.  
 

Dunning Kruger is rampant in golf.

 

A big one on Sean2’s point is people will automatically call a swing with what they perceive as good tempo a great swing, regardless of how awful it actually is.  “Look how smooth that is.”  

 

[xmanhockey7]

Scoring average is definitely what I like to look at over a period of time. But is not the only way to measure progress. 

[Fairway14]

4 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

 

 

A big one on Sean2’s point is people will automatically call a swing with what they perceive as good tempo a great swing, regardless of how awful it actually is.  “Look how smooth that is.”  

 

 

True, but smooth easy tempo has a way of producing good effective rhythm , which usually means reasonably solid golf shots. Most all Tour players with questionable swing mechanics/positions  make it work by using excellent tempo/rhythm. 

 

[SNIPERBBB]

20 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

True, but smooth easy tempo has a way of producing good effective rhythm , which usually means reasonably solid golf shots. Most all Tour players with questionable swing mechanics/positions  make it work by using excellent tempo/rhythm. 

 

Problem is too many people interpret easy tempo as slow speed.  See it all the time at the range as teenagers and twenty something's swinging so slow that passing butterflies move faster.

[MonteScheinblum]

38 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

True, but smooth easy tempo has a way of producing good effective rhythm , which usually means reasonably solid golf shots. Most all Tour players with questionable swing mechanics/positions  make it work by using excellent tempo/rhythm. 

 

 

39 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

True, but smooth easy tempo has a way of producing good effective rhythm , which usually means reasonably solid golf shots. Most all Tour players with questionable swing mechanics/positions  make it work by using excellent tempo/rhythm. 

 

Actually, the vast majority of the time the opposite is true.  People’s backswings are so slow, their rhythm stinks.

 

I don’t know why people can’t get passed this.  The number of golfers with backswings that are too slow far out numbers those that are too fast.  
 

People who spend  a lot of time on the lesson tee agree, people that can’t get beyond the core belief in the cliche, continue to argue at their own peril.

 

Those that use Els, Couples, Morikawa and Im to support their argument, fail to realize their backswings and tempos are significantly faster than the golfers that have slow smooth tempos and struggle.

[Fairway14]

11 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

 

Actually, the vast majority of the time the opposite is true.  People’s backswings are so slow, their rhythm stinks.

 

 

Who wrote "slow backswing" ? Not me.

[RichieHunt]

Good question and topic.

 

I think people don't realize the minute difference between lower handicap players and how just improving by say, 1-stroke in handicap is a massive improvement.

For example, Steph Curry played in the then Web.com event as a 2-handicap and everybody expected him to finish dead last and 'not break 80.'  Instead he finished 74-74 and actually beat a few pros.  Is Steph Curry better than those pros he beat?  Of course not.  But in reality he shot scores fairly close to his handicap.

Tour players and their fans tend to exaggerate what legitimate low handicaps can shoot and exaggerate how low they will go in the same environment.  There was a great article with Steve Marino (when he was playing well) as to what he would should on a 7,000 yard muni.  They pondered what he would shoot and he came away shooting 68.  And Marino stated that he felt he would rarely go low like 63 or better if he played there.  But on the other hand Marino felt he would likely never shoot over par there as well.  

 

I got to play 9 holes with Wayne Levi about 2 years after he won the PGA Tour Player of the Year honors and on a fairly easy, public course he shot 35 (-1).  At my club we have numerous Korn Ferry, Champions Tour and LPGA golfers and we play tournament type rules and they will shoot over par from time to time and get beaten by amateurs out there.  I really don't think the LPGA Tour players (some who have won on the LPGA) are better than +1 from the tips.  They usually play the blues (2nd longest tees) and pretty much shoot 70-75.  But the difference is that they never shoot much worse than that.

 

 

 

 

RH

[MonteScheinblum]

19 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

Who wrote "slow backswing" ? Not me.

That’s what slow smooth tempo is and turns into.  Smooth rhythm and smooth tempo are two completely different things and slow smooth tempo nearly always results in a slow backswing that causes poor rhythm.  
 

The success rate of people with “slow smooth tempo” increasing their backswing speed to a faster tempo and gaining speed and better contact is 100%.  
 

Tour Tempo has proven that 3 to 1 is a winner at every skill level.  Slow smooth tempo is between 5-1 and 10-1..

[Fairway14]

6 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

That’s what slow smooth tempo is and turns into.  

 

Who wrote "slow tempo"? Not me.

[MonteScheinblum]

4 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Who wrote "slow tempo"? Not me.

 

4 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Who wrote "slow tempo"? Not me.

Play semantics all you want.  Smooth easy tempo is slow by everyone’s interpretation both intellectually and over the ball.  It’s a long debunked cliche.

[Fairway14]

14 hours ago, Lefty_3Jack said:

If you find someone who is a + handicap and it's only tournament rounds that's the real deal.

 

Truth !

[Fairway14]

Just now, MonteScheinblum said:

 

Play semantics all you want.  Smooth easy tempo is slow by everyone’s interpretation both intellectually and over the ball.  It’s a long debunked cliche.

 

Play "golf instructor" if you want.

You may interpret someone writing "easy tempo" as meaning "slow", but that does not mean "everyone" does. I can guarantee you Tour players and, or, competent instructors would not equate the words "easy tempo" with the word "slow".

[MonteScheinblum]

8 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Play "golf instructor" if you want.

You may interpret someone writing "easy tempo" as meaning "slow", but that does not mean "everyone" does. I can guarantee you Tour players and, or, competent instructors would not equate the words "easy tempo" with the word "slow".

 

8 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Play "golf instructor" if you want.

You may interpret someone writing "easy tempo" as meaning "slow", but that does not mean "everyone" does. I can guarantee you Tour players and, or, competent instructors would not equate the words "easy tempo" with the word "slow".

And you’ve learned this from all your time on the lesson tee, discussions with tour players and some of the top instructors in the world who are your friends?

 

I don’t know why I let myself get sucked into these discussions.  My morbid desire to help others get beyond the core beliefs that are holding them back gets the best of me.

 

‘Well done sir, you’ve annoyed me to the point I’m leaving this discussion and all others you are involved in. You win the internet today.  I’m defeated.

[Honixx]

Handicap index is the best indicator of skill/ability. Assuming you log ALL of your rounds properly.  

[Arn]

57 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

Well done sir, you’ve annoyed me to the point I’m leaving this discussion and all others you are involved in. You win the internet today.  I’m defeated

Wow and someone commented that instructors get chased away by trolls earlier in the thread.

[SNIPERBBB]

1 hour ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Play "golf instructor" if you want.

You may interpret someone writing "easy tempo" as meaning "slow", but that does not mean "everyone" does. I can guarantee you Tour players and, or, competent instructors would not equate the words "easy tempo" with the word "slow".

 

 

This is how it works...you tell new/struggling player to have a nice easy tempo. New/struggling player interpret that to mean to go slow and deliberate. Then proceeds to block the crap out of the ball or look like an 95 year old in slow mo swinging a club. That's what everyone on this thread is talking about.

[Fairway14]

36 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

 

 

This is how it works...you tell new/struggling player to have a nice easy tempo. New/struggling player interpret that to mean to go slow and deliberate. Then proceeds to block the crap out of the ball or look like an 95 year old in slow mo swinging a club. That's what everyone on this thread is talking about.

 

It's true that incompetent instructors or poorly skilled players might interpret the words "easy smooth tempo" to mean "slow", but whose fault is that ?

Proper address technique fundamentals (grip-posture-alignment) promote not only good sense swing positions, but also naturally effective swing tempo and rhythm. This is why the best instructors spend most of their time teaching address fundamentals.

Successful players with unorthodox technique, such as Fred Couples, Paul Azinger,  Lee Trevino etc... got it done by using smooth tempo, for all shots  from tee box thru the green.

So, a player has two options for finding good effective swing tempo. The easy way is by using fundamentally sound address technique., which naturally promotes good tempo/rhythm, without having to think about it. The hard way is by using unorthodox technique but sill managing to swing with an effective smooth tempo/rhythm.

No competent instructor or accomplished player uses the word "slow", because that word inspires a guided, non athletic motion.

 

Edited November 30, 2020 by Fairway14

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

It's true that incompetent instructors or poorly skilled players might interpret the words "easy smooth tempo" to mean "slow", but whose fault is that ?

Proper address technique fundamentals (grip-posture-alignment) promote not only good sense swing positions, but also naturally effective swing tempo and rhythm. This is why the best instructors spend most of their time teaching address fundamentals.

Successful players with unorthodox technique, such as Fred Couples, Paul Azinger,  Lee Trevino etc... got it done by using smooth tempo, for all shots  from tee box thru the green.

So, a player has two options for finding good effective swing tempo. The easy way is by using fundamentally sound address technique., which naturally promotes good tempo/rhythm, without having to think about it. The hard way is by using unorthodox technique but sill managing to swing with an effective smooth tempo/rhythm.

No competent instructor or accomplished player uses the word "slow", because that word inspires a guided, non athletic motion.

 

 

Place marker for when your butt gets thrown out of here (finally)

[Shilgy]

16 hours ago, Lefty_3Jack said:

Saying Tony Romo shoots 85 "often" is likely inaccurate.  I looked him up on GHIN and didn't see any 85's but he also doesn't post much either.  If you're a + handicap you're not shooting in the 80's "often".  

 

I've always said I'd rather be that 3 handicap that consistently shoots 75-80 than someone who could go low one day and have a really bad day.  Now I am that guy and I'm wishing "I hit it further so I could play tougher tees" and "if I could only one putt more I could get into the 60's and drop closer to being a +".  FYI you'll never be satisfied with your game.  

 

Regarding if someone is truly good or just a pretty good player I'd say it starts with tournament play.  I don't consider myself a good player @ a 2.9 right now because none of those rounds are tournament play.  I stopped posting rounds that I play by myself and I've seen some good young players only post rounds that are in tournament play.  If you find someone who is a + handicap and it's only tournament rounds that's the real deal.

Lol at Romo doesn’t post much.....his last 20 scores go back to 2013.  I think we have all read about many more rounds of his.  I am not sure if his is a vanity cap or he just thinks he’s too cool to keep a cap.  Curry, on the other hand, his last 20 only go back to August.  I know which cap I would trust. 
 

PS kudos to you for not posting solo rounds. They are ineligible for posting by USGA rules.