golf's three most overrated currently common beliefs ?

[leekgolf]

On 7/3/2021 at 12:35 PM, Fairway14 said:

 

Nicklaus writes in his book that he very rarely swung for maximum distance. Most current Tour pros could (if they wanted to) strike longer driver shots. They don't do so because making "long drive competition swings" compromises accuracy and it also negatively affects the swings needed to play the rest of the clubs within the bag, which is a reason that most professional long drive competitors struggle to break 80. DeChambeau is unique in that he brings a long drive competitors mentality to Tour golf. Some amateurs and incompetent media talking heads embrace DeChambeau's long drive style because they find it fun and exciting, but players wanting to actually lower their scoring average would be better served targeting fairways and greens.

In Nicklaus's prime in the 60s, he was one of the longest if not the longest guy on tour. Of course he didn't have to go all out, he was already crazy long.

 

“If we had (the new) golf ball in my day," Lee Trevino told USA Today in 2007, “The best of us would have hit it 300 yards and Jack Nicklaus would have hit it 360.”

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by leekgolf

[leekgolf]

On 7/3/2021 at 5:35 PM, Fairway14 said:

 

John Mahaffey won about a dozen Tour events as well as one Major, the 1978 PGA Championship. For 20+ years he averaged 225 to 235 from the tee and hit fairway after fairway, a great player. He does some t.v. broadcast work so if you attend one of the events where he is working you could probably meet him.

 

In the 70s, 260 average was a long ball. He was playing shorter courses than today. Back then, the "Blue Monster" was about 6800 yards and they called it a monster.

 

Mahaffey played at a different time.

[Fairway14]

6 minutes ago, leekgolf said:

In Nicklaus's prime in the 60s, he was one of the longest if not the longest guy on tour. Of course he didn't have to go all out, he was already crazy long.

 

 

 

Nicklaus philosophy applies to all players. That is 80% is a number that one can comfortably repeat, week after week, year after year. For the driver he mostly went 80%. And for approach shots, when there are 7 or 8 iron clubs within the bag, it makes sense to again use 80% and select the iron that reaches the target. All players would benefit from Nicklaus strategy.

[Fairway14]

4 minutes ago, leekgolf said:

In the 70s, 260 average was a long ball. He was playing shorter courses than today. Back then, the "Blue Monster" was about 6800 yards and they called it a monster.

 

Mahaffey played at a different time.

 

Mahaffey played on Tour courses longer than most amateurs play today. That's the point and the reason he is a good example for internet forum players to learn from.

[larrybud]

7 hours ago, Ghost of Snead said:

 

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.

 

They define it because the course rating is based on what a "scratch" player would shoot, and course ratings are determined by computing effective playing distance of a hole, obstacles, penalty areas etc. The "average driving distance" is used in those computations for both scratch and bogey golfers.

The course rating guide definitions haven't changed. The values in brackets [ ] are the "bogey golfer" definition and are used when computing the "bogey rating" vs the scratch rating, which is how slope is computed.

 

Scratch Player - A player with a 0.0 Handicap Index. A scratch player, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 [210] yards and can reach a 470 [400] yard hole in two shots at sea level.

 

Anyway, a little off topic, but didn't want this to be left out there. BTW, here's a link to the USGA Course Rating guide, everything you ever [didn't] want to know.

https://www.golfleaguetracker.com/glthome/fileshare/2020_usga_course_rating_guide.pdf

Interesting little tidbit in the rating manual, btw:

Edited July 16, 2021 by larrybud

[larrybud]

4 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. 

 

2 hours 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.

 

I might be a little pedantic here, being longer typically means higher swing speed, which means that any ball curving one direction or another will curve MORE for that player, even though a player may have the same face angle, club head path to target, etc. 

 

As far as "accuracy", it depends on how you define it.

 

Is a player who hits it 30 yards off line on a 300 yrd drive more or less accurate than a player who hits it 20 yards off line on a 200 yard drive? Same percentage of error, same degrees off line, same accuracy, or not? What if that 30 yards off line put him OB while the 20 yards off line is still in play?

How about a guy who stripes it right down the middle 4 out of 5 times at 300 yards, but puts the 5th one 40 yards OB? Is he more or less accurate than the 200 yard hitter that has a 20 yard wide dispersion pattern? The bombers average from center is lower than the short knocker (both in average yards and average degrees off line) but is he more or less "accurate"?

 

I don't think there's any objective measure to this, except for Strokes Gained, which is in the end, really all that matters.

BTW, according to GameGolf, my SG vs a scratch player off the tee is less than 2 strokes per round.
 

[Fairway14]

16 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

 

 

As far as "accuracy", it depends on how you define it.

 

I
 

For tee shots accuracy is defined by number of fairways hit.

[isaacbm]

54 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Nicklaus philosophy applies to all players. That is 80% is a number that one can comfortably repeat, week after week, year after year. For the driver he mostly went 80%. And for approach shots, when there are 7 or 8 iron clubs within the bag, it makes sense to again use 80% and select the iron that reaches the target. All players would benefit from Nicklaus strategy.

Sorry but this is a feeling he had, by no means an actual fact.  If his MAX was about 120mph, do you really think he was swinging

at 96 MPH?  Or maybe you think 120 was his 80% and he actually had another 20% in him?  So he could swing 144 MPH but chose not to?!!  

 It's the same as when someone says "3/4 6 iron."  If their 6 goes 190, they're not actually trying to hit it 142 yards,(80% of 190) More like 175.  

 

There are so many ridiculous "feels" that have been quoted as facts over the years.  "hold it like a baby bird" "swing within yourself" "just caress the ball with long irons"  " breezy swing easy"

it goes on and on!  

Nicklaus was one of the worst. (he's my favorite player of all time)  The guy murdered 1-iron!  There was no holding back and just trying to "chip it into play".  

Make no mistake, Jack tore at the ball like no one in history.  You know why?  Because it gave him a massive advantage!

[Obee]

1 minute ago, isaacbm said:

Sorry but this is a feeling he had, by no means an actual fact.  If his MAX was about 120mph, do you really think he was swinging

at 96 MPH?  Or maybe you think 120 was his 80% and he actually had another 20% in him?  So he could swing 144 MPH but chose not to?!!  

 It's the same as when someone says "3/4 6 iron."  If their 6 goes 190, they're not actually trying to hit it 142 yards,(80% of 190) More like 175.  

 

There are so many ridiculous "feels" that have been quoted as facts over the years.  "hold it like a baby bird" "swing within yourself" "just caress the ball with long irons"  " breezy swing easy"

it goes on and on!  

Nicklaus was one of the worst. (he's my favorite player of all time)  The guy murdered 1-iron!  There was no holding back and just trying to "chip it into play".  

Make no mistake, Jack tore at the ball like no one in history.  You know why?  Because it gave him a massive advantage!

This ^^^^^

[isaacbm]

31 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

For tee shots accuracy is defined by number of fairways hit.

I like to use "successful" rather than accurate.   As in how many "open looks at the green" I have in a day.  A 300 yard drive 2 yards in the rough leaving me 

a simple wedge to a wide open green was a successful drive.   A 175 yard top to the middle of the fairway on a 475 yard par 4 was 

not a successful shot. 

Edited July 16, 2021 by isaacbm

[nsxguy]

25 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

Sorry but this is a feeling he had, by no means an actual fact.  If his MAX was about 120mph, do you really think he was swinging

at 96 MPH?  Or maybe you think 120 was his 80% and he actually had another 20% in him?  So he could swing 144 MPH but chose not to?!!  

 It's the same as when someone says "3/4 6 iron."  If their 6 goes 190, they're not actually trying to hit it 142 yards,(80% of 190) More like 175.  

 

There are so many ridiculous "feels" that have been quoted as facts over the years.  "hold it like a baby bird" "swing within yourself" "just caress the ball with long irons"  " breezy swing easy"

it goes on and on!  

Nicklaus was one of the worst. (he's my favorite player of all time)  The guy murdered 1-iron!  There was no holding back and just trying to "chip it into play".  

Make no mistake, Jack tore at the ball like no one in history.  You know why?  Because it gave him a massive advantage!

 

Eggs-actly.

 

I mentioned this earlier in this thread.

 

NOBODY hits a driver at 80%.

 

As you say, they may "feel" they are swinging 80%,,,,,,,, but they ain't. 👍

[PracticeSwinger]

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

 

I might be a little pedantic here, being longer typically means higher swing speed, which means that any ball curving one direction or another will curve MORE for that player, even though a player may have the same face angle, club head path to target, etc. 

 

As far as "accuracy", it depends on how you define it.

 

Is a player who hits it 30 yards off line on a 300 yrd drive more or less accurate than a player who hits it 20 yards off line on a 200 yard drive? Same percentage of error, same degrees off line, same accuracy, or not? What if that 30 yards off line put him OB while the 20 yards off line is still in play?

How about a guy who stripes it right down the middle 4 out of 5 times at 300 yards, but puts the 5th one 40 yards OB? Is he more or less accurate than the 200 yard hitter that has a 20 yard wide dispersion pattern? The bombers average from center is lower than the short knocker (both in average yards and average degrees off line) but is he more or less "accurate"?

 

I don't think there's any objective measure to this, except for Strokes Gained, which is in the end, really all that matters.

BTW, according to GameGolf, my SG vs a scratch player off the tee is less than 2 strokes per round.
 

Awesome post (and thanks for the previous link to the USGA guide - always wanted to dig deeper and figuring the rating/slope calculations, more than just it’s a tough one because it’s 143!)

 

I guess everyone can agree that distance is an advantage - but at what price - and your example shows it…what if that 300 guy does it 19 times out of 20 instead of 4 out of 5… and as you noted, SG measures that ‘advantage/disadvantage’ precisely…

 

I’m thinking the discussion here comes

from the fact that guys on both sides of the fence are using a ‘generalization’ of the other player they’re portraying… guy that says he’s reaching 290 has to be that ‘free swinging bro’ without any idea if it’s on the nose or right of right… and the 230 guy needs to be bunter type (and you can’t imagine him being scratch on a 7,000 course because he’d have to hit GIR from 210in all day long and he can only drive it 230)… while it is perfectly possible that one gets to be a scratch by hitting it solid at 280, although with a wider cone dispersion because of distance, and playing closer to the hole on average but with more recovery shots (that nullify the advantage)… as the other is scratch because he keeps it in play (even if it’s only at 230) and uses his plus short game to grind his way

[nsxguy]

On 7/1/2021 at 1:33 PM, Fairway14 said:

1) distance is highly significant to scoring

2) getting fit for clubs is essential

3) large club heads are more forgiving than small club heads

 

The above are three common perceptions I often hear and, or, read, but find to be misleading and, or, false.

For example, if a player can consistently strike 235 yard straight tee shots he is long enough to shoot under par golf on a 6,800 yard championship course. I understand it is trendy to think that having a 9-iron shot from the rough is better than a 6-iron shot from the middle of the fairway , but on the golf courses I rarely see amateurs playing from the rough or trees all day shoot low scores. I see lots of guys playing from the middle of the fairway shoot low scores.

Regarding "fitting" I believe it's a marketing strategy designed to sell clubs and services more so than anything which will significantly impact a player's shots or scores. Give a player who consistently breaks 75 a club and within a swing or two he will make technique adjustments to produce respectable shots from that club. Higher handicap players have swing technique issues which no club will solve, so if they want to strike better shots the solution is improved swing technique. 

Large club heads, be it driver, fairway woods, irons, or putter are designed to produce better shots from mishits. This is backwards thinking. A good club design is one which promotes consistently solid strikes, and most players will hit more pure-solid strikes with a relatively small club head than they will swinging an over sized head.

 

Please post to this thread thread three common beliefs about golf that you find to be overrated and, or, false.

 

On 7/14/2021 at 2:45 PM, larrybud said:

 

 

Well, I'm this guy. 223 driver (blue area is my stats, grey is the average "scratch" player according to GameGolf, last 5 rounds).  (SS% is actually around 35% with a larger sample size)
 

 

 

Current index, and until a couple low ones just rolled off, you can see I was < 1 for about a month.

 

 

My GIR:

 

Just one small correction, when I won the CC in 2015 (there's a thread on it here somewhere) it was ~6800 yards, but I did get into the finals one year when we played it tipped out at 7200. I was probably a couple of yards longer back then, but not much. I'm actually a better player now, handicap wise. I beat a college player in the finals too (I think he lurks on here). Look up my numbers from the 2016 GolfWrx Gear Trials (https://www.golfwrx.com/354028/2016-gear-trials-player-profiles-bob-areddy/) and you can see what they were back then. 97 mph SS, no doubt I'm slower now. I was a 3 or 4 index back then, IIRC.

I hit it short because I'm an old fart (52), short (5'7" and not getting any taller), have short arms, and my launch numbers suck with the driver. My workout regiment tends to be sitting in a chair all day.

In the GAM Qualifier Monday I shot 74, missed the cut by 3 unfortunately, but I have managed to get by in 2017 with a 70 at the same course.

I get up and down from everywhere, hit my fair share of greens and make very few mistakes, that's how I score. 
 

 

 

On a 6800 yard course that is incredibly impressive.

 

You seem to be claiming 223, not 235. Is the 223 total ? Or carry ?

 

Either way it is still impressive.

 

I'm not sure posting your name on a public forum is a wise thing to do but thanks.

 

Also, it's difficult to keep the original "thought" in mind and it's morphed quite a bit but the OP said "if a player can consistently strike 235 yard straight tee shots he is long enough to shoot under par golf on a 6,800 yard championship course."

 

The statement itself is quite obviously true but this is what he does.

 

So let me ask you. You're playing from (roughly) 6,800 yards. What's the rating and slope from 6800 ? And how many rounds might you have under par in your last 20 ?

 

My workout regimen is roughly the same as yours. And I've lost about 5 mph off my driver SS over the last 20 years. But I'm a fair bit older than you are and can still swing it around 94 or so.

 

So at 52, workout regimen or not, I'm a little surprised you believe your SS is down (that much). Been on a launch monitor lately ?

 

But even if you've lost about 5, down to say 92, that should still give you roughly 230 carry. Even here in SoFla with fairly soft fairways I can get roll out quite regularly to 250 or so.

 

Anyway, congrats on the game. Again, very impressive. 👍

[nikegal]

17 hours ago, isaacbm said:

Sorry but this is a feeling he had, by no means an actual fact.  If his MAX was about 120mph, do you really think he was swinging

at 96 MPH?  Or maybe you think 120 was his 80% and he actually had another 20% in him?  So he could swing 144 MPH but chose not to?!!  

 It's the same as when someone says "3/4 6 iron."  If their 6 goes 190, they're not actually trying to hit it 142 yards,(80% of 190) More like 175.  

 

There are so many ridiculous "feels" that have been quoted as facts over the years.  "hold it like a baby bird" "swing within yourself" "just caress the ball with long irons"  " breezy swing easy"

it goes on and on!  

Nicklaus was one of the worst. (he's my favorite player of all time)  The guy murdered 1-iron!  There was no holding back and just trying to "chip it into play".  

Make no mistake, Jack tore at the ball like no one in history.  You know why?  Because it gave him a massive advantage!

Exactly!! This is what he visualized in his mind and as you said, the "feeling" that he had. That is like Sam always said that he gripped light enough to hold a bird but not so hard as to squeeze and hurt the bird but in fact, Sam's grip was probably an 8/10, which is very very firm and if he squeezed a bird with his actual golf grip, while he might not squish it, it would be very very uncomfortable. Richard recently posted a picture of his left forearm in his downswing and you can tell by the tension and vascularity in his forearm that he is squeezing  much tighter than his "birdie" advice. I would put that in the three myths. As far as Jack, as Dan said, it was a subconscious vision and "feeling," not a fact. Just as Sam swung at 100% while in total balance, so did Jack. As great as he was, he was not great enough to swing at 80% and be amongst the longest hitters of his era, haha. Also, let's not forget his comment to reporters that he never missed a 5' putt or less for either the lead or victory on a Sunday, when there was a video of Jack doing EXACTLY that, though it was actually a 4'er on Sunday that cost him a Champions tournament. In his mind, he NEVER missed a 5' or less putt. THAT was his reality. The same can be said of his "80% swing." Hi Dan 🙂 Madison

Edited July 16, 2021 by nikegal

[MonteScheinblum]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Eggs-actly.

 

I mentioned this earlier in this thread.

 

NOBODY hits a driver at 80%.

 

As you say, they may "feel" they are swinging 80%,,,,,,,, but they ain't. 👍

The difference between high club speed and low club head speed for the year is often not more than 5 or 6 %

[hoganfan924]

80% is a description of feel (vs. max effort), not 80% of max speed.  An 80% of max effort drive is probably 95% of max speed.

[zachillusions]

1. Lag, lag, lag

2. Getting shallow

3. Bowing the lead wrist at the top of the backswing aka wRiSt CoNdItIoNs.

 

 

Literally all you see anymore in online non-personalized golf instruction (YouTube) is these three things HAMMERED over and over and over. No, bowing your wrist isn't a guaranteed slice fix, no you don't have to have this wildly acute lag angle, no - you don't have to get george gankas level of shallow......  Golf instruction is just riddled with this junk anymore. Its like anybody and their brother can become a popular YouTube instructor by just reiterating these three things across 100 different videos. "YOU MUST KNOW THIS ONE SLICE FIXING TRICK," "FIX YOUR ENTIRE SWING WITH THIS ONE SIMPLE SHALLOWING METHOD", "GET XBOX LEVELS OF LAG TO GAIN 500 YARDS WITH YOUR DRIVER."

 

 

Bonus one:
4. It works for <insert tour player here> so you should do it too! 

 

This one is especially annoying because players like Dustin Johnson are commonly used in these examples but Dustin Johnson has an ABNORMAL swing. Instead of doing what one or two incredible players do, maybe model your swing off of what the other 100 players who aren't in the spotlight but are very good do.

[larrybud]

10 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

For tee shots accuracy is defined by number of fairways hit.

 

That's a lousy metric if that's the case because it doesn't really mean much. 

[Fairway14]

3 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

That's a lousy metric if that's the case because it doesn't really mean much. 

 

Lie of the ball means very much to shot making and the fairway is a good place to be.

[larrybud]

8 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

On a 6800 yard course that is incredibly impressive.

 

You seem to be claiming 223, not 235. Is the 223 total ? Or carry ?

 

Either way it is still impressive.

 

I'm not sure posting your name on a public forum is a wise thing to do but thanks.

 

Also, it's difficult to keep the original "thought" in mind and it's morphed quite a bit but the OP said "if a player can consistently strike 235 yard straight tee shots he is long enough to shoot under par golf on a 6,800 yard championship course."

 

The statement itself is quite obviously true but this is what he does.

 

So let me ask you. You're playing from (roughly) 6,800 yards. What's the rating and slope from 6800 ? And how many rounds might you have under par in your last 20 ?

 

My workout regimen is roughly the same as yours. And I've lost about 5 mph off my driver SS over the last 20 years. But I'm a fair bit older than you are and can still swing it around 94 or so.

 

So at 52, workout regimen or not, I'm a little surprised you believe your SS is down (that much). Been on a launch monitor lately ?

 

But even if you've lost about 5, down to say 92, that should still give you roughly 230 carry. Even here in SoFla with fairly soft fairways I can get roll out quite regularly to 250 or so.

 

Anyway, congrats on the game. Again, very impressive. 👍

 

223 is my total AVERAGE distance. My home course was 73.1/143 from 6600 yards back then (par 72) (rating has been reduced a few tenths last couple of years for some redesign). For the CC they moved a few of the tee boxes back so it played 6800, so a couple of tenths higher than 73.1. I've only shot under par a few times there, but I shoot ~75 a lot.

No way 92mph is getting you 230 carry. At best 220 carry, and that's if your numbers are completely perfect: 1.5 smash factor, optimal launch angle, optimal spin
 

92 mph max ball speed is 138 (1.5 smash factor). Try the flighscope shot optimizer:
https://flightscope.com/products/trajectory-optimizer/

 

[larrybud]

18 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Lie of the ball means very much to shot making and the fairway is a good place to be.

 

It doesn't mean as much as you think when looking at strokes gained. SG 30 yards ahead in the rough is better than 50 yards behind in the FW. Plus there's "in the rough" and "in the rough and punching out".

Why do you think all these tour players are trying to hit it as far as possible?

Edited July 16, 2021 by larrybud

[Fairway14]

4 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

It doesn't mean as much as you think when looking at strokes gained. SG 30 yards ahead in the rough is better than 30 yards behind in the FW.

 

See the OP of this thread. Perceiving distance as especially relevant to scoring is a common mistake. Amateurs wanting to lower their scoring should do what they can to hit more fairways, either by producing a driver swing that does so or by using less than driver from the tee boxes.

Strokes gained statistics are derived from Tour players who are highly skilled at playing shots from the rough, trees and other less than ideal lies. 

[larrybud]

Just now, Fairway14 said:

 

See the OP of this thread. Perceiving distance as especially relevant to scoring is a common mistake. Amateurs wanting to lower their scoring should do what they can to hit more fairways, either by producing a driver swing that does so or by using less than driver from the tee boxes.

Strokes gained statistics are derived from Tour players who are highly skilled at playing shots from the rough, trees and other less than ideal lies. 

There are all sorts of SG metrics, not just tour players. You should read Mark Broadie's book, he has numbers for more than just tour players.

[Fairway14]

Just now, larrybud said:

There are all sorts of SG metrics, not just tour players. You should read Mark Broadie's book, he has numbers for more than just tour players.

 

My collection of golf books includes titles written by Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, Sam Snead, Tom Watson , Nick Faldo etc... I read, listen, and learn from the best players. Why would I want to read anything from Broadie who likely struggles to break 85 ? 

[trilerian]

39 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Lie of the ball means very much to shot making and the fairway is a good place to be.

 

Most courses, hitting out of the rough is just fine, especially if you have the swing speed.  I have no issues hitting my 4w out of the rough at most courses I play.  Yeah, there are a few that the rough is ridiculous, but for the most part hitting out of the rough is fine.  You just have to plan for more rollout when hitting greens.

 

10 hours ago, isaacbm said:

I like to use "successful" rather than accurate.   As in how many "open looks at the green" I have in a day.  A 300 yard drive 2 yards in the rough leaving me 

a simple wedge to a wide open green was a successful drive.   A 175 yard top to the middle of the fairway on a 475 yard par 4 was 

not a successful shot. 

 

This right here...  Of course I am not 300, but the point remains the same.  On a 420 yard par 4, I would much rather have a 9i from the rough vs a 5i from the fairway.  

 

 

The thing that confuses me the most about the OPs stance, is that he thinks less dispersion is good on tee shots, but on approach shots he seems to be the opposite.  The longer the club you hit on approach shots, the higher the dispersion, he is using that logic for the tee shot, but ignores it on approach.  Getting the club with the least amount of dispersion you can into your hands for your approach is what the goal is, that is what will make amateurs shoot better and bring down their index.  In short, you accept a loss of accuracy off the tee to allow you to use a club with more accuracy going into the greens. 

Edited July 16, 2021 by trilerian

[ChipStrokes]

38 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

It doesn't mean as much as you think when looking at strokes gained. SG 30 yards ahead in the rough is better than 50 yards behind in the FW. Plus there's "in the rough" and "in the rough and punching out".

Why do you think all these tour players are trying to hit it as far as possible?

 

26 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

See the OP of this thread. Perceiving distance as especially relevant to scoring is a common mistake. Amateurs wanting to lower their scoring should do what they can to hit more fairways, either by producing a driver swing that does so or by using less than driver from the tee boxes.

Strokes gained statistics are derived from Tour players who are highly skilled at playing shots from the rough, trees and other less than ideal lies. 

 

25 minutes ago, larrybud said:

There are all sorts of SG metrics, not just tour players. You should read Mark Broadie's book, he has numbers for more than just tour players.

 

this thread came full circle in a very satisfying way. 

[Fairway14]

7 minutes ago, trilerian said:

 

 

 

Getting the club with the least amount of dispersion you can into your hands for your approach is what the goal is, that is what will make amateurs shoot better and bring down their index.  In short, you accept a loss of accuracy off the tee to allow you to use a club with more accuracy going into the greens. 

 

You are not understanding or appreciating the negative effect that lies off the fairway have to shot making and scoring.

[Rocky Ball-boa]

3 minutes ago, trilerian said:

In short, you accept a loss of accuracy off the tee to allow you to use a club with more accuracy going into the greens. 

 

I probably agree with you in general. But I suppose it depends on a lot of factors and perspectives;

 

On most of the courses around here - if you're a reasonably "big hitter" and you're 10-15% off-line, you're not simply hitting a 9i from the rough, you are punching out side-ways or hitting your third off the tee. No amount of 9-irons from the rough is going to make up for a couple of those per round for the average amateur.

But similarly I watch some youtube golfers on (predominantly) American courses that look like airfields with very little punishment for being even rather severely off-line.

 

I fully accept that this won't be the case for many players and many courses (and combinations thereof) though. And that almost makes me think that this whole discussion is a bit moot, since it's so dependent on other factors. There's probably not one clear answer on what's best or not for an individual.

Mathematically there's of course always an average or a mean which tips in favour one way or another, but no individual person should look at a conclusion drawn for the average or mean and apply that to their own game.
 

[PracticeSwinger]

48 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

My collection of golf books includes titles written by Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, Sam Snead, Tom Watson , Nick Faldo etc... I read, listen, and learn from the best players. Why would I want to read anything from Broadie who likely struggles to break 85 ? 

... can we lock this thread already?... that is either trolling or clueless (and I'm generally in the open mind category when it comes to opinions on a forum board)

[trilerian]

13 minutes ago, Rocky Ball-boa said:

 

I probably agree with you in general. But I suppose it depends on a lot of factors and perspectives;

 

On most of the courses around here - if you're a reasonably "big hitter" and you're 10-15% off-line, you're not simply hitting a 9i from the rough, you are punching out side-ways or hitting your third off the tee. No amount of 9-irons from the rough is going to make up for a couple of those per round for the average amateur.

But similarly I watch some youtube golfers on (predominantly) American courses that look like airfields with very little punishment for being even rather severely off-line.

 

I fully accept that this won't be the case for many players and many courses (and combinations thereof) though. And that almost makes me think that this whole discussion is a bit moot, since it's so dependent on other factors. There's probably not one clear answer on what's best or not for an individual.

Mathematically there's of course always an average or a mean which tips in favour one way or another, but no individual person should look at a conclusion drawn for the average or mean and apply that to their own game.
 

 

It is only ever an "in general" thing.  Course management still needs to be used.  If you are on a tree lined or hazard lined fairway and your normal tee shot with the driver will put you in trouble, then yeah, club down to something that will not.  You still have to be able to go for the greens, or the distance doesn't matter.  I don't think anyone will argue that.  

26 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

You are not understanding or appreciating the negative effect that lies off the fairway have to shot making and scoring.

 

And I think you overestimate the average amateurs ability to hit a longer club off a "perfect" lie in the fairway.