golf's three most overrated currently common beliefs ?

[isaacbm]

1. Anecdotal evidence is better than statistical evidence

   (hundreds of examples in this thread alone)

2. With enough time and hard work anyone can be great

   (And we can all all slam from the foul line and run the 4 minute mile)

3. PGA Tour statistics are relevant to amateur golf. 

   (Every stat kept on tour would be better playing at a local 6900 yard member course)

 

 

Don't even get me started with this distance debate!  

[larrybud]

14 hours ago, doobz said:

Kudos to you for being an incredible outlier. Appreciate the post!

 

Like I said, my buddy is a near identical game to me. There are more "outliers" out there than you think. Hell, neither of us even practice anymore. lol

 

I think it's no secret that many people greatly overestimate their actual driving yardage. Not to say there aren't bombers out there, I play with them all the time as well, but I also play with people who think they "average" 280 where their actual *average* is more like 250-260. They might get one out there 280 once in a while, but that's not your average.

Edited July 15, 2021 by larrybud

[mgoblue83]

Just wanted to share another reason that speed is the #1 determining factor in scoring potential:

 

I coach high school girls golf and college coaches will ALWAYS recruit a girl who averages 80 but hits the ball 250yds over a girl who averages 75 but can barely hit it 200 yds. Why? Significantly higher scoring potential. Coaching can improve short game and scoring much easier than it can improve distance.

 

It's also why most youth coaching (girls and boys) is now geared toward hitting the ball as far as possible as you are learning the game.

[garyt]

On 7/13/2021 at 3:50 PM, Forged4ever said:

Superb point SG👊
 

Fairways Greens & Fair Skies 4ever My Friend⛳️
RP

Very true. I've played in leagues, tournaments (not high level obviously) lots of travel golf, etc and I've never played with a guy who hits it 285. There's one guy in my tournament group who can get there but doesn't average that. One of the guys who's in his 30's played small college golf and he doesn't do it. The "long" guys I see hit it 240-250. Strictly anecdotal, I know but I just don't see it. I know tons of guys on here do it, but compared to the golfing population as a whole, it's a very small number.

[Lefthook]

Then you’re not playing with decent young players.

[Fairway14]

2 hours ago, larrybud said:

 

Like I said, my buddy is a near identical game to me. There are more "outliers" out there than you think. Hell, neither of us even practice anymore. lol

 

I think it's no secret that many people greatly overestimate their actual driving yardage. Not to say there aren't bombers out there, I play with them all the time as well, but I also play with people who think they "average" 280 where their actual *average* is more like 250-260. They might get one out there 280 once in a while, but that's not your average.

 

So much truth !

I am not sure why so many here find it incredible that a 230 average driver distance player can shoot par or better on 6,800 yard courses. I believe  most clubs/courses around the world each have at least a few of these players. 

[trilerian]

31 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

So much truth !

I am not sure why so many here find it incredible that a 230 average driver distance player can shoot par or better on 6,800 yard courses. I believe  most clubs/courses around the world each have at least a few of these players. 

 

It's also a really good idea to ship 27o preflop in Texas holdem, because it wins 20% of the time...

[pinhigh27]

2 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

So much truth !

I am not sure why so many here find it incredible that a 230 average driver distance player can shoot par or better on 6,800 yard courses. I believe  most clubs/courses around the world each have at least a few of these players. 

The word can means it’s possible. All the stats in the world show it’s unlikely and that you’re giving up substantial ground because the majority of your competitors will hit it substantially farther. 
 

just because you can do something a certain way doesn’t mean it’s ideal. There are people who can play golf at an elite level crosshanded, yet we don’t teach people to do that and most would probably struggle.

[pinhigh27]

You can be 5’8 and play in the nba but your chances of doing it are far worse than if you’re 6’6. It’s basic statistics. The constant need to ignore extremely apparently trends is very strange. People at basically all levels of good golf are getting longer. 
 

to be frank if you are a healthy, averaged sized man 50 or younger and hit it 230 , your golf swing probably sucks. Average people can hit it way way further than 230 

[larrybud]

Lol. Tough to hit 57% GIR with a sucky swing, but whatever. I think you're delusional on what "average" people hit it, frankly. After all, even the USGA's own definition of a "scratch" golfer is a player who *averages* 250. Not 275, not 300. 250, so 223 is well within the bell curve, certainly as much as people who hit it 275.

Would it be easier and would I shoot lower scores if I gained 20 yards? If I remained as accurate as I am, of course. But to think I'm some sort of unicorn is just crazy.

[Ghost of Snead]

21 minutes ago, larrybud said:

Lol. Tough to hit 57% GIR with a sucky swing, but whatever. I think you're delusional on what "average" people hit it, frankly. After all, even the USGA's own definition of a "scratch" golfer is a player who *averages* 250. Not 275, not 300. 250, so 223 is well within the bell curve, certainly as much as people who hit it 275.

Would it be easier and would I shoot lower scores if I gained 20 yards? If I remained as accurate as I am, of course. But to think I'm some sort of unicorn is just crazy.

 

Not sure why the USGA would even attempt to define a "scratch" player using driving distance. You can be scratch if you hit average 200 or 325.

[pinhigh27]

40 minutes ago, larrybud said:

Lol. Tough to hit 57% GIR with a sucky swing, but whatever. I think you're delusional on what "average" people hit it, frankly. After all, even the USGA's own definition of a "scratch" golfer is a player who *averages* 250. Not 275, not 300. 250, so 223 is well within the bell curve, certainly as much as people who hit it 275.

Would it be easier and would I shoot lower scores if I gained 20 yards? If I remained as accurate as I am, of course. But to think I'm some sort of unicorn is just crazy.

How old is that definition ? Average scratch player has gotten longer over past 10-15 years. 

 

didn’t you say you’re older than 50? I wasn’t referring to you specifically , more the concept of generally obtaining the swing you need to hit the ball well results in way majority of healthy guys hitting it pretty far 

 

unicorn is relative. It’s very rare to hit it 230 and be a 1 handicap. How rare is up to you. Less than 1% would guess. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by pinhigh27

[Forged4ever]

7 hours ago, larrybud said:

 

Like I said, my buddy is a near identical game to me. There are more "outliers" out there than you think. Hell, neither of us even practice anymore. lol

 

I think it's no secret that many people greatly overestimate their actual driving yardage. Not to say there aren't bombers out there, I play with them all the time as well, but I also play with people who think they "average" 280 where their actual *average* is more like 250-260. They might get one out there 280 once in a while, but that's not your average.

There are waaaaaay more "outliers" than are being given credit for in this thread, however you have to bear in mind that one, 98%+ of these guys do not Play at your level(or mine when I was in the game) and secondly, 98%+ of them do not Play with or against the guys that you do and I did, so their "sample" size and type would be nothing like ours. 
 

Though I've only mentioned two, there are probably 3-4 more over at Oakmont.  One is a former Three Time Collegiate AA for the Tar Heels, the #2 Am in the USofA his senior season and a Walker Cupper, who Played the Tour for a year and a half before he shredded his shoulder and two mediocre surgeries later he was done as a Pro. He put the sticks away for 7-8 years then got reinstated, and he went on to win his second PA Am Championship a few months later, and he didn't hit a drive over 250yds(his words). Prior to his shoulder injury, he was 280-290, with a low 280+ average. He said that post-injury he was 240- 250, TOPS, with the majority in the 240-245yd range. Now granted, this was 1993-1994, I forget the exact year, however I was putting the ball 30-35yds past him all day long however he hit nothing but ropes ALL day long, whether it was a driver, 3i or 5i and his short game was still Tour caliber, again, which 98%+ here cannot appreciate cuz they have never played with or against a legitimate "Tour Level" short game Player, as was his putting.
 

Long story short, he dispatched me 4&3, and I was two over par after 15 holes from the BoB's, which were at 6950yds+ on a USGA Major track.
 

The other guy is a retired attorney, past 2-Time Club Champ, who I finished runner-up to in one of em and in his other Victory, he beat me in our "Elite Eight" in MP, on the 24th hole, to get to the "Final Foursome, which was at the time a 72 hole final, though it was switched to 54 holes, then 36😏😖(The kids are soft today😂😂). He NEVER hit a ball over 245yds, won both of his Clubs from 6950yds+ and went to his Fla home in the dead *ss heat of Summer in the mi-90's to prepare for the Champion's Tour Finals Q in December, which he had taken runner-up in the regional Q to get to. He finished T12, 8 strokes back of the coveted fifth spot and I think 15 off the medalist. My point was here was a practicing attorney, 2-Time Club Champion, +3.2  who competed against the finest 50yo+ Players in this nation, many of them Pros, with 20+ having teed it up in at least one PGA Tourney, and he didn't hit a ball near 250yds, much less past it. Now the naysayers are gonna say, "yah, but that was then and this is now," however please remember that we Played our Club Championship from 6950yds+, and trust me Gents, that 6950yds+ with razor thin fairways, 4-5" second cut and 13-14 greens was just as nasty THEN as it is today😉. He was competing at the highest senior Professional level on earth, so I gotta believe that the yardage was 6700-6800yds+ for the Champions Q.

 

These are just the two that I competed against, though I know that Oakmont had/has 3-4 guys like our attorney. The former Tour boy belongs to both our Club and Oakmont. I know I myself HATED Playin against the attorney more than anyone, and I mean literally, anyone else. That includes The Past PA Amateur Champion and future USGA Champion that I defeated to earn that trophy in my avatar. Simply, even that USGA Champion made mistakes, he would hit 4-5 mediocre shots a round, though not "poor" by the average golfer's judgement, they were "off" enough to give me an opening if I Played my game and I knew to beat an Elite Am or local Pro in the Open Tournaments, that it would come down to 1-2 shots over a whole round. So while I would have to be damn near flawless, if I was firing on all cylinders, those 3-4 shots were all that I needed. 

 

The attorney???

 

He MIGHT hit 1, on a bad day, 2, unforced error or "mediocre" shots. Forget "flawless." I had to be d@mn near PERFECT!! The attorney was a +1 to +2 when we butted heads in the Championships and I would much much rather have Played the bombers, like my Bro, who were takin it 300+ plus before the bats and super balls of today were around, cuz they were in that 4-5 unforced error shot range and I could beat that without having to be "perfect," because I too would hit 3-4, however in my mind, I didn't admit that to myself then, and it seemed to work for me, lolol. Hey, Jack told a room full of reporters that he'd never missed a 5' or less with either the lead or the Tourney on the line, when in fact there was a video of him doing EXACTLY that two weeks prior in a Champions Tour event when he'd missed a 4'er that cost him the lead and he would lose the Tourney in a play-off. In his mind, that putt, and any others like it, never EVER occurred. The subconscious mind is a beautiful animal if ya train it properly!!
 

All this said, while you, the other Gent that you spoke of and the guys that I mentioned are definitely more the exception than the norm, at the Players' Clubs, at least the Players' clubs in the Burgh, there are a few sprinkled in every Players' SWAT that I've ever Played in. 
 

Continued Success Brotha👊
 

My Best,

Richard

Edited July 15, 2021 by Forged4ever

[Lefthook]

52 minutes ago, larrybud said:

Lol. Tough to hit 57% GIR with a sucky swing, but whatever. I think you're delusional on what "average" people hit it, frankly. After all, even the USGA's own definition of a "scratch" golfer is a player who *averages* 250. Not 275, not 300. 250, so 223 is well within the bell curve, certainly as much as people who hit it 275.

Would it be easier and would I shoot lower scores if I gained 20 yards? If I remained as accurate as I am, of course. But to think I'm some sort of unicorn is just crazy.

 Yes I think you would …. If you had the speed and could swing within yourself. I am very impressed by your game btw. Those who fly it 40-70 yards past youcan -and probably do - make a lot more mistakes for the same scores.

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

Would it be easier and would I shoot lower scores if I gained 20 yards? If I remained as accurate as I am, of course. But to think I'm some sort of unicorn is just crazy.

 

44 minutes ago, Lefthook said:

Yes I think you would …. If you had the speed and could swing within yourself. I am very impressed by your game btw. Those who fly it 40-70 yards past youcan -and probably do - make a lot more mistakes for the same scores.

 

The original statement that was supposedly untrue was: "1) distance is highly significant to scoring"

 

I would state, @larrybud, that if you had a golf ball that flew 20% farther than today's golf balls, it would reduce your handicap. Because you already have incredible accuracy, short game, etc to have a 1 index with your distance.

 

I'd also state that if another 1 index, but who averages 270 off the tee, started playing a ball that flew 20% shorter than today's golf ball, their index would increase. Because to have the same index as you with less length, that golfer probably has a less accuracy approach and worse short game than you do. 

 

Distance isn't the ONLY thing relevant to scoring, but distance IMHO is highly significant to scoring. Lacking distance means that every other part of your game has to be nearly flawless to make up for the lack of distance. 

 

That's why USGA data shows that driving distance and lower indexes are positively correlated. Hitting the ball farther makes the game easier. 

[Fairway14]

 

 

12 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

The original statement that was supposedly untrue was: "1) distance is highly significant to scoring"

 

I would state, @larrybud, that if you had a golf ball that flew 20% farther than today's golf balls, it would reduce your handicap. Because you already have incredible accuracy, short game, etc to have a 1 index with your distance.

 

I'd also state that if another 1 index, but who averages 270 off the tee, started playing a ball that flew 20% shorter than today's golf ball, their index would increase. Because to have the same index as you with less length, that golfer probably has a less accuracy approach and worse short game than you do. 

 

Distance isn't the ONLY thing relevant to scoring, but distance IMHO is highly significant to scoring. Lacking distance means that every other part of your game has to be nearly flawless to make up for the lack of distance. 

 

That's why USGA data shows that driving distance and lower indexes are positively correlated. Hitting the ball farther makes the game easier. 

 

 

Obviously a 270 straight ball hitter has an advantage over a 220 yard straight ball hitter. But the reality is that  on the golf courses  the 270 yard  tee shot hitters often miss the fairway. This seems to be the point most of the distance proponents are missing. 

In my weekly skins game  it is common for 210 to 240 distance players to  shoot lower scores than the 260-280 yard tee ball players. The shorter-straighter hitters are playing from the fairway all day from where it is relatively easy to make pars and birdies. The guys who drive it past 50 yards past the shorter hitters half the time leave their tee shot within the rough or trees. For amateur golf scoring there is a big difference between playing from the middle of the fairway or playing from the rough, trees, fairway bunkers etc...

[pinhigh27]

Just now, Fairway14 said:

 

 

 

 

Obviously a 270 straight ball hitter has an advantage over a 220 yard straight ball hitter. But the reality is that  on the golf courses  the 270 yard  tee shot hitters often miss the fairway. This seems to be the point most of the distance proponents are missing. 

In my weekly skins game  it is common for 210 to 240 distance players to  shoot lower scores than the 260-280 yard tee ball players. The shorter-straighter hitters are playing from the fairway all day from where it is relatively easy to make pars and birdies. The guys who drive it past 50 yards past the shorter hitters half the time leave their tee shot within the rough or trees. For amateur golf scoring there is a big difference between playing from the middle of the fairway or playing from the rough, trees, fairway bunkers etc...

You truly don’t understand stats. Or the fact that your skins game isn’t necessarily generalizable to the rest of golf. 220 hitters also miss fairways. 
 

also it’s a skin games. People are trying to make birdies not shoot the lowest score. 

[Fairway14]

3 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

You truly don’t understand stats. Or the fact that your skins game isn’t necessarily generalizable to the rest of golf. 220 hitters also miss fairways. 
 

also it’s a skin games. People are trying to make birdies not shoot the lowest score. 

 

I get why so many people who don't understand the nuances of the game are misled by stats, especially statistics derived from Tour play. Every player with a current Tour card has a sensational green side game from the rough, bunkers, short and long chip shots etc...

Amateurs , especially longer hitting one's, typically do not have  anywhere near as sharp a green side short game as a Tour pro. So, crooked driving is more of a problem to scoring for an amateur than it is a Tour pro.

Great scoring shorter hitters can't afford to miss fairways so they tend not to do so. Hitting 12 to 14 fairways is not unusual for a really good shorter hitting player.

 60% of  our skins game pot goes to low medal scores for the day. In other words, if the pot is $400,  approximately $240 will be paid out to low scores and $160 to skins.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Fairway14

[Lefthook]

There are lots of amateurs with great short games. Those who are long but not very precise get plenty of practise. Those guys you talk about need it equally well. 

[Fairway14]

10 minutes ago, Lefthook said:

There are lots of amateurs with great short games. Those who are long but not very precise get plenty of practise. Those guys you talk about need it equally well. 

 

Long hitter with sensational short game = Tour player. 

[doobz]

1 hour ago, Fairway14 said:

 

 

 

 

Obviously a 270 straight ball hitter has an advantage over a 220 yard straight ball hitter. But the reality is that  on the golf courses  the 270 yard  tee shot hitters often miss the fairway. This seems to be the point most of the distance proponents are missing. 

In my weekly skins game  it is common for 210 to 240 distance players to  shoot lower scores than the 260-280 yard tee ball players. The shorter-straighter hitters are playing from the fairway all day from where it is relatively easy to make pars and birdies. The guys who drive it past 50 yards past the shorter hitters half the time leave their tee shot within the rough or trees. For amateur golf scoring there is a big difference between playing from the middle of the fairway or playing from the rough, trees, fairway bunkers etc...

This is the fallacy that people are getting all worked up about in this thread. Being longer doesn't have to mean less accurate, nor does it have to mean being a worse iron player or having a worse short game. All else equal, the longer you hit it the better, it's true on tour and it's true for amateurs. 

[Fairway14]

2 minutes ago, doobz said:

This is the fallacy that people are getting all worked up about in this thread. Being longer doesn't have to mean less accurate, nor does it have to mean being a worse iron player or having a worse short game. All else equal, the longer you hit it the better, it's true on tour and it's true for amateurs. 

 

Correct, longer doesn't "have " to mean less accurate, but the reality is that longer usually does mean less accurate. Anybody who has watched lots of golf should expect that the longer a player is  the less likely he is to be accurate.

[Three_Jack]

7 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Correct, longer doesn't "have " to mean less accurate, but the reality is that longer usually does mean less accurate. Anybody who has watched lots of golf should expect that the longer a player is  the less likely he is to be accurate.

A longer player has to be more accurate than a shorter player to keep it in bounds.

[aenemated]

On 7/14/2021 at 8:33 AM, doobz said:

I cant tell you how many times some of the older guys I play with say things like "oh man that's gotta be 300+" when it's not even close.

 

Heh I was at my old range a couple months ago and there was some dude in the stall by me with half his extended family. None of them were hitting balls except him ... and he was basically acting like Gary Player to them all. Very odd. 

 

At some point he starts into like rapid fire with his driver, just swinging as absolutely hard as he could. Makes decent contact a couple times and finally says to who I assume was a brother or whatever "Yeah dude, that one went like 340."

 

The range in question has a net at about 250. He wasn't even close to the net 😂

[betarhoalphadelta]

49 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Correct, longer doesn't "have " to mean less accurate, but the reality is that longer usually does mean less accurate. Anybody who has watched lots of golf should expect that the longer a player is  the less likely he is to be accurate.

 

No, being longer means wider dispersion at the same accuracy. Because 2* off line at 270 yards is farther off line than 2* off line at 230 yards. Nothing about being longer means you're necessarily going to be additional DEGREES off line.

 

[Fairway14]

15 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

No, being longer means wider dispersion at the same accuracy. Because 2* off line at 270 yards is farther off line than 2* off line at 230 yards. Nothing about being longer means you're necessarily going to be additional DEGREES off line.

 

 

Whatever word (s) one wants to use, a fairway lie is more desirable than not .Decades ago 1-iron was common for strong players such as Jack Nicklaus, DL III, Tiger etc...So in that case they could use their power to find fairways by playing less than driver from lots of tee boxes.

This strategy is not especially popular among today's Tour players, but I think it's one the longer hitters should consider. In other words, if a guy like DJ could hit more fairways playing a 3-wood or 1-iron , yet still be as long or longer than most of the field, that strategy might help win more tournaments.

[Lefthook]

1 hour ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Long hitter with sensational short game = Tour player. 

I think you just killed your main argument.

[doobz]

1 hour ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Whatever word (s) one wants to use, a fairway lie is more desirable than not .Decades ago 1-iron was common for strong players such as Jack Nicklaus, DL III, Tiger etc...So in that case they could use their power to find fairways by playing less than driver from lots of tee boxes.

This strategy is not especially popular among today's Tour players, but I think it's one the longer hitters should consider. In other words, if a guy like DJ could hit more fairways playing a 3-wood or 1-iron , yet still be as long or longer than most of the field, that strategy might help win more tournaments.

Yes if the World #1 gave up his biggest advantage it might help him perform better. Come on man, you have to realize how insane that sounds right? How do you think he got to be the World #1 in the first place?

[pinhigh27]

1 hour ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Whatever word (s) one wants to use, a fairway lie is more desirable than not .Decades ago 1-iron was common for strong players such as Jack Nicklaus, DL III, Tiger etc...So in that case they could use their power to find fairways by playing less than driver from lots of tee boxes.

This strategy is not especially popular among today's Tour players, but I think it's one the longer hitters should consider. In other words, if a guy like DJ could hit more fairways playing a 3-wood or 1-iron , yet still be as long or longer than most of the field, that strategy might help win more tournaments.

I wonder if he has ever thought of that ? Added to ignore 

[Fairway14]

9 minutes ago, doobz said:

Yes if the World #1 gave up his biggest advantage it might help him perform better. Come on man, you have to realize how insane that sounds right? How do you think he got to be the World #1 in the first place?

 

Yesterday DJ was interviewed and he said "people ask me about distance but really my goal is not to hit it longer,  I want to hit more fairways".

It's good he is thinking that way and maybe he will come to the conclusion that more 3-woods and, or, long irons off the par 4 and par 5 tee boxes is helpful.