golf's three most overrated currently common beliefs ?

[mgoblue83]

51 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

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

 

I don't know a single golfer of any ability level that is more likely to hit the green with a 5i from the fairway vs. a 9i from the rough.

[Fairway14]

23 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

... 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)

 

Fact: Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo have all won multiple Majors . These players know the game and amateurs may learn much from them.

 

Fact: Broadie is a college professor; an academic, an  amateur player with little true understanding of golf and its nuances.

 

I question why anyone would choose to learn about golf from a hacker rather than a Major champion winner.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

2 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Fact: Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo have all won multiple Majors . These players know the game and amateurs may learn much from them.

 

Fact: Broadie is a college professor; an academic, an  amateur player with little true understanding of golf and its nuances.

 

I question why anyone would choose to learn about golf from a hacker rather than a Major champion winner.

 

All your examples, notably Nicklaus, were relatively long hitters during their peak playing years.

 

They are professionals, and their games are much different than ours.

 

Broadie’s data seems to indicate that longer hitters tend to play better.

 

[PracticeSwinger]

24 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Fact: Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo have all won multiple Majors . These players know the game and amateurs may learn much from them.

 

Fact: Broadie is a college professor; an academic, an  amateur player with little true understanding of golf and its nuances.

 

I question why anyone would choose to learn about golf from a hacker rather than a Major champion winner.

You know Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo's game has nothing to do with yours... you even stated that you don't want to look at Strokes Gained because it applies to Tour pros and it's not the same game as the one played by amateurs (even though it doesn't only apply to them)...

 

You know Broadie developed a system that shows how it would be advantageous/disadvantageous for you - for every shot that you took and where it ended up... isn't that what this whole thread is all about?... yet you prefer to ignore it (and I'm pretty sure no one talking here is wondering if Broadie prefers a bowed or flat lead wrist at the top ?!)

 

SG would confirm that you are, on average, better off (as a 2cap) to be in the rough 275yds from the tee with your 9iron in hand compared to being 235yds from the tee in the fairway with a 5iron in hand... as the result of the first two shots would leave you closer to the hole, on average, going with the first option... obvioulsy, all of this is hole dependent and has to be analysed beforehand (OB, hazards, etc.)... but, on average, you would lower your score going with the first option

Edited July 16, 2021 by MtlJayMan

[smashdn]

18 hours 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. 

 

You've introduced another variable into the conversation.  It is fine to have the "yeah but..." argument but they too are not absolute.

 

Not every person driving it 270 is wilder than someone driving it 240.  To a point you are correct if you confine it to "percent of offline deviation."  If the persons are the same percentage of deviation off, then yes the 270 driver will be further horizontally from the target line than the 240 driver.

 

Also, at some point the 30 yard advantage in distance overcomes that additional horizontal deviation.  Different situations (fairway width, trouble in the rough or not, rough itself) play into that.  If the fairway is 40 yards wide and a miss while driving it to 240 means I am center right and driving it 270 with the same miss means I am right side of fairway )provided angle into green is not negatively impacted) that 30 yard driving advantage is huge.  That is 3 clubs for most people.  A difference between a 4i and 7i or a 7i and PW.

[Bad9]

1 hour ago, MtlJayMan said:

... 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)

 

Its undoubtedly both as are most of the other threads started by the OP.

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Fact: Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo have all won multiple Majors . These players know the game and amateurs may learn much from them.

 

Fact: Broadie is a college professor; an academic, an  amateur player with little true understanding of golf and its nuances.

 

I question why anyone would choose to learn about golf from a hacker rather than a Major champion winner.

 

Same reason why analytics are studied and implemented in other sports (and gambling).  Mathematical trends can show you nuances that even the best in the sport (or gambling) can't quantitate. 

 

You aren't learning golf so much as you are learning better decision making.  The most important part I think is that it gives you the confidence to make the decisions since you know statistically speaking you are making a decision that should lend itself to the best outcome in the most amount of situations rather than basing it on feel.  You can second guess feel but can you really second guess going with the statistical most likely scenario?  That isn't to say that the right decision will not end up in a bad outcome, just that you went with the play that had the highest probability of turning out right.

 

Card counting makes a lot of sense on the surface and you can do a pretty fair job of it with a basic understanding.  But knowing the percentages comes form the mathematical and statistical analysis.

[betarhoalphadelta]

14 hours 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.
 

 

Well, this whole argument has gotten a bit pedantic, don't ya think? The argument to support lack of significance to distance is being portrayed at excellent short hitters who are almost always in the fairway vs "spray and pray" distance chasers. Which is just false.

 

But it doesn't change the fact that distance is significant--as your own SG numbers of -2 off the tee (and probably equal to + elsewhere if you're a 1-cap) vs scratch show. You're a good enough golfer to be a 1 without much distance--yet you're still losing almost 2 strokes off the tee compared to what you COULD be if you had more distance. 

 

But let's compare a few options. Player A hits his driver 275, his 4h 230, his 7i 170, and his GW 125. Player B hits his driver 230 and his 4i 170.

 

They step up onto the tee box of a 400-yard par 4. 

 

If there's no trouble on this hole, Player A will be playing driver/GW into the hole, while player B will be playing driver/4i into the hole. I'd say that no matter the situation with rough, unless it's knee-height links-style nastiness, player A will have the advantage here.

 

If there's trouble on the hole, i.e. OB, hazards, etc that come into play longer off the tee, Player A has the option to hit 4h off the tee and still have 7i into the green. Player B again hits driver and is left with 4i to the same green. I'd call that AGAIN an advantage for Player A because on both shots he's taking less club than Player B. 

 

Assuming the two players are of similar skill re: ballstriking, Player A should have better dispersion with his 4h than Player B's driver, and better dispersion with his 7i thank Player B has with his 4i. Player A's distance advantage is even more important because he has the option to dial it back when hole conditions warrant it, whereas Player B has no extra gear to hit it farther when a hole is wide open.

 

Nothing forces you to take driver on every hole. I'm a 20-cap, so my ballstriking is suspect. I hit driver about 265-270 (total, not carry). I'm very judicious as to when and whether I'll hit driver on any given hole. I make that determination based on the layout of the hole, whether driver gives me an advantage and whether it brings trouble into play. That's a luxury of being able to hit the ball farther. 

 

Nobody is saying that you should hit driver on every par 4 and 5. But when the hole is open, being able to hit a driver 40 yards past another player is an advantage, and when the hole isn't open, being able to club down and still hit the ball as far as another player using less club is also an advantage. 

[doobz]

15 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

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.

Yeah, hit more fairways without giving up length. If DJ hits long irons off par 5 tee boxes he may as well just be Kevin Kisner. Come on.

[doobz]

The other thing that a lot of people overlook is more clubhead speed = more ability to control spin and distance from rough, so missing fairways is also less punitive the more clubhead speed you generate. 

[doobz]

2 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Fact: Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo have all won multiple Majors . These players know the game and amateurs may learn much from them.

 

Fact: Broadie is a college professor; an academic, an  amateur player with little true understanding of golf and its nuances.

 

I question why anyone would choose to learn about golf from a hacker rather than a Major champion winner.

 

There are countless examples of former players who are stuck in the "back in my day" mindset and fail to understand nuance of the modern game. Watch any baseball broadcast called by a former player for a perfect example.

[smashdn]

3 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

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

 

Fairway hit is a metric that can't take into account whether you are better to be on the wrong side of the fairway or on the correct side in the light rough or first cut.  Frankly nothing can really well.  So you have to plop the old "it depends" on those type of statements.

 

"Fairways at all costs" or "being in the fairway is key" are equally bad generalizations and I think that is the point of the OP ask.  "Fairways are great but not if it means..."  And then you can fill in any number of things from there.  "You have to give up 50 yards to hit that fairway," "you kill your chances at going for a par five green in two," etc.

 

A shorter next shot is generally always better than a longer one.  The caveats are hazards and rough and trees and what not that effect your ability to make a "next shot."

 

Grab up the book Lowest Score Wins and it really goes into good detail about how to actually use the SG and stats findings for your game.  It puts those things into great context and differentiates between long term strategy and short term need.

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

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

 

OK, I guess I'll have to "Fariway14" ya on this one (make a general statement and then, when challenged, point out a relatively small % that go against the "rule").

 

You know, like a 235 yard driver can shoot even par from 6800.

 

The higher the handicap the more likely they'd rather be in the first cut/rough; especially on tight fairways.

 

Higher capper "fats it" fairly consistently, especially on tight lies where a more precise strike is needed. The rough often gives them a cushion, a larger margin of error where the same strike that would be fatted on the fairway, now turns out reasonably flush and gives a much better outcome.

[PhilsFanDrew]

2 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Fact: Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo have all won multiple Majors . These players know the game and amateurs may learn much from them.

 

Fact: Broadie is a college professor; an academic, an  amateur player with little true understanding of golf and its nuances.

 

I question why anyone would choose to learn about golf from a hacker rather than a Major champion winner.

 

The names you mentioned are some of the best to have played the game.  Amateurs don't have games that really relate to them.  It's for that reason that many MVP/All Stars in sports make lousy head coaches after their playing days.   Not saying they didn't work hard but they were blessed with talent that few others had and they can't relate as well to guys that had to grind hard just to remain a professional athlete.  

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, larrybud said:

 

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/

 

 

Thanks. I am familiar with flightscope.

 

I believe you said you haven't been on a launch monitor in a while. Just not interested ? I was kinda sorta wondering about the actual loss of SS. 95 mph, roughly my ss, can carry it 230

 

As I said earlier I have the same workout regimen 🙃 and I haven't lost much, at an older age. I was about max SS 20(?) years ago (~99 mph) when I first saw a launch monitor. Now I'm ~95 mph.

 

But playing at your level I find it hard to understand someone who's such a good ball striker being (seemingly) so inefficient with the driver. I mean even at 92, efficient carry is almost 220. Is there virtually zero rollout where you are ?

 

FWIW in SoFla, with my old driver strike (just shy of 4K spin) I could understand the drive hitting and stopping next to its pitch mark - after all, I did it quite regularly.

 

But since I've adjusted my driver swing I now spin it in the low 2K range and get probably 15-30 rollout unless the fairways are unusually soft.

 

Don't you feel like figuring out how to drive it better ? Or has that workout regimen of ours become too attractive ?

 

 

[Petethreeput]

2 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Fact: Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo have all won multiple Majors . These players know the game and amateurs may learn much from them.

 

Fact: Broadie is a college professor; an academic, an  amateur player with little true understanding of golf and its nuances.

 

I question why anyone would choose to learn about golf from a hacker rather than a Major champion winner.

This is solid gold.

Would I believe a NASA engineer about the size of the universe or Neil Armstrong who went to space?  Would I believe my Dr to tell me I have cancer even though he hasn't had it?  If I were Tiger Woods, would I believe Butch Harmon even though I would beat him by 12 strokes?

We are entering the inanity zone here.

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Fact: Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo have all won multiple Majors . These players know the game and amateurs may learn much from them.

 

Fact: Broadie is a college professor; an academic, an  amateur player with little true understanding of golf and its nuances.

 

I question why anyone would choose to learn about golf from a hacker rather than a Major champion winner.

 

Fact - Most, if not all, tour players, including Major Championship winners, have an instructor/coach/guru/whatever helping him out between rounds with pretty much all phases of their games who can't play anywhere near as well as the player himself.

 

I question why anyone would choose to listen to a Major Championship winner. Or 2 handicapper for that matter.

[pinhigh27]

6 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Fact: Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo have all won multiple Majors . These players know the game and amateurs may learn much from them.

 

Fact: Broadie is a college professor; an academic, an  amateur player with little true understanding of golf and its nuances.

 

I question why anyone would choose to learn about golf from a hacker rather than a Major champion winner.

Ya and Bill James was just a math guy. Look at baseball.

[Soloman1]

And this guy was one of the best kicking coaches in the NFL. What the hell would he know?

 

 

[The Pearl]

5 hours ago, Petethreeput said:

This is solid gold.

Would I believe a NASA engineer about the size of the universe or Neil Armstrong who went to space?  Would I believe my Dr to tell me I have cancer even though he hasn't had it?  If I were Tiger Woods, would I believe Butch Harmon even though I would beat him by 12 strokes?

We are entering the inanity zone here.

 

Teaching golf and being a championship golfer are two different disciplines and requires two different skill sets.  Anybody who has ever had a class from a brilliant professor who can't teach worth a crap understands this clearly. 

 

 

[chippa13]

11 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Fact: Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo have all won multiple Majors . These players know the game and amateurs may learn much from them.

 

Fact: Broadie is a college professor; an academic, an  amateur player with little true understanding of golf and its nuances.

 

I question why anyone would choose to learn about golf from a hacker rather than a Major champion winner.

Those who can do. Those who can't teach.

[chippa13]

4 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

And this guy was one of the best kicking coaches in the NFL. What the hell would he know?

 

 

It has been proven time and again in all sports that the best players are the worst coaches.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

On 7/16/2021 at 9:19 AM, nsxguy said:

 

Thanks. I am familiar with flightscope.

 

I believe you said you haven't been on a launch monitor in a while. Just not interested ? I was kinda sorta wondering about the actual loss of SS. 95 mph, roughly my ss, can carry it 230

 

As I said earlier I have the same workout regimen 🙃 and I haven't lost much, at an older age. I was about max SS 20(?) years ago (~99 mph) when I first saw a launch monitor. Now I'm ~95 mph.

 

But playing at your level I find it hard to understand someone who's such a good ball striker being (seemingly) so inefficient with the driver. I mean even at 92, efficient carry is almost 220. Is there virtually zero rollout where you are ?

 

FWIW in SoFla, with my old driver strike (just shy of 4K spin) I could understand the drive hitting and stopping next to its pitch mark - after all, I did it quite regularly.

 

But since I've adjusted my driver swing I now spin it in the low 2K range and get probably 15-30 rollout unless the fairways are unusually soft.

 

Don't you feel like figuring out how to drive it better ? Or has that workout regimen of ours become too attractive ?

My SS is 105-109 and carry 255-260. Not that great a ball striker, yet I do hit about 8 greens on average.

 

95mph with my ball striking would only carry 226. 

 

Not hard to believe his numbers?

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Lincoln_Arcadia said:

My SS is 105-109 and carry 255-260. Not that great a ball striker, yet I do hit about 8 greens on average.

 

95mph with my ball striking would only carry 226. 

 

Not hard to believe his numbers?

 

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "with my ball striking". Numbers are numbers.

 

As in flightscope which lb referenced.

 

95 SS, approx 142 ball speed with 16* launch and 2200 spin is right around 230 carry.........

 

[ChipStrokes]

On 7/16/2021 at 9:45 AM, Fairway14 said:

 

Fact: Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo have all won multiple Majors . These players know the game and amateurs may learn much from them.

 

Fact: Broadie is a college professor; an academic, an  amateur player with little true understanding of golf and its nuances.

 

I question why anyone would choose to learn about golf from a hacker rather than a Major champion winner.

the most comprehensive study done on strategy in hockey games was compiled by a bunch of quants from a hedge fund. 

 

not by salty old hockey coaches, or legends of the game. 

 

your antiquated positions and your insistence to keep your eyes closed in the face of data-driven research are laughable if they’re not simply an attempt to troll everyone 

[pinhigh27]

10 hours ago, ChipStrokes said:

the most comprehensive study done on strategy in hockey games was compiled by a bunch of quants from a hedge fund. 

 

not by salty old hockey coaches, or legends of the game. 

 

your antiquated positions and your insistence to keep your eyes closed in the face of data-driven research are laughable if they’re not simply an attempt to troll everyone 

and also likely limit the ability to play the game as well as they could 

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

12 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "with my ball striking". Numbers are numbers.

 

As in flightscope which lb referenced.

 

95 SS, approx 142 ball speed with 16* launch and 2200 spin is right around 230 carry.........

 

As opposed to perfect ball striking. Hahaha…

[Fairway14]

On 7/16/2021 at 7:08 AM, Lincoln_Arcadia said:

 

All your examples, notably Nicklaus, were relatively long hitters during their peak playing years.

 

 

 

Yes, Nicklaus was a long hitter but he also was aware of the benefits a fairway lie gave him versus a lie off of the fairway. This is why Nicklaus played lots of par 4 and par 5 tee shots with a 1-iron. . This is why Nicklaus rarely played a driver shot trying for maximum distance.

[Fairway14]

On 7/16/2021 at 7:08 AM, MtlJayMan said:

You know Nicklaus, Woods, Snead, Watson, Faldo's game has nothing to do with yours... you even stated that you don't want to look at Strokes Gained because it applies to Tour pros and it's not the same game as the one played by amateurs (even though it doesn't only apply to them)...

 

 

 

Multiple times I've written that Major winners have authored golf instruction books, appeared in videos etc... which are filled with helpful information for all players trying to lower their scoring, from beginner to Tour pro skill level.  And while working as a broadcaster Faldo routinely offers commentary about swing technique, club selection strategy, relaxation methods etc... that can help players lower their scores. The point is the best players in the world can and do provide help for all skill level of players , so there is no good sense reason to seek guidance from an academic theoretician like Broadie who struggles to  to break 85.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

30 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Yes, Nicklaus was a long hitter but he also was aware of the benefits a fairway lie gave him versus a lie off of the fairway. This is why Nicklaus played lots of par 4 and par 5 tee shots with a 1-iron. . This is why Nicklaus rarely played a driver shot trying for maximum distance.

 

Right, even without maximising his distance he was one of the longest players during his era.

 

Faster swings generally do allow players to score lower. Not all longer players score well, but distance helps. That’s not a myth.