golf's three most overrated currently common beliefs ?

[EDT501]

@Fairway14 if you promise to read them with an open mind I’ll buy you his books so you can draw your own conclusions from the primary sources

[Fairway14]

2 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

It is really stupid to recommend someone to hit an 8 iron off a par 5 teebox. There are basically no holes in the world where that is beneficial for anyone unless it's the only club they can hit.

 

If the average amateur score is 100, which clubs in their bag do you believe they can consistently hit reasonably solid and straight ? My guess is wedge thru 8-iron is about it. Once the shaft gets longer and the loft decreases most amateurs start hitting sideways shots. 

[Fairway14]

5 minutes ago, EDT501 said:

@Fairway14 if you promise to read them with an open mind I’ll buy you his books so you can draw your own conclusions from the primary sources

 

Sure I will read the books, thank you for the generous offer.

[EDT501]

7 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Nicklaus in his prime played lots of tee shots with a 1-iron. Tiger won the 2006 British Open over four rounds of golf only once swinging a driver. Sam Snead won most of his tournaments playing a 2-wood rather than a driver.  These winning pros definitely used "rational thought" to make their tee box club selections. 

Again, exceptional players in exceptional circumstances are exceptions not the rule. In 2006 Tiger was able to hit a wood off the tee and thanks to conditions generate huge amounts of roll, giving him big distance and control, the best of both worlds. Broadie states in his book that Tiger, Nicklaus, and Snead were such fantastic champions not because they were more accurate but because they were accurate while being much longer than their peers, a massive advantage. 
 

As others have said, distance being important doesn’t mean swinging out of your shoes with a driver every time, it’s about properly valuing being closer to the hole. On a typical course with light rough, it makes no sense to pull a long iron or fairway wood off the tee if the landing zone for a driver is comparable to the landing zone for a fairway wood. Again, every single shot has its own set of nuances that must be evaluated, but in general the data indicates that conventional wisdom has long overvalued being in the fairway as compared to further up provided you aren’t off the planet.

[EDT501]

10 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Sure I will read the books, thank you for the generous offer.

Feel free to PM an address and I will send them over. Like I’ve mentioned, it is not a replacement for proper swing mechanics and is not a panacea for poor golf decision making, but I’ll be surprised if you come out of it still thinking Broadie and his approach is worthless.

[Fairway14]

1 minute ago, EDT501 said:

. Again, every single shot has its own set of nuances that must be evaluated, but in general the data indicates that conventional wisdom has long overvalued being in the fairway as compared to further up provided you aren’t off the planet.

 

Actually, it's not just "single shots". The reality is that grooving a driver swing for maximum distance usually has a negative affect on the swings needed for the rest of the clubs within the bag. For example at Hoylake Tiger playing 2-iron off all the tee boxes eliminated the "hit it hard" mind set that sometimes crept into his swing when he played lots of driver shots. Consequently, without the negative influence of "hit it hard", at Hoylake Tiger's tempo-rhythm for all clubs that week was impeccable.

What is "off the planet"? At many courses only 3 to 8 yards off the fairway may mean sitting well down within grassy rough , or trees as an obstacle for the next shot, or a rock hard pan lie within a waste bunker, or an awkward angle for the line of the  forthcoming shot etc... Is 5 yards from the fairway "off the planet"?

[pinhigh27]

47 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

If the average amateur score is 100, which clubs in their bag do you believe they can consistently hit reasonably solid and straight ? My guess is wedge thru 8-iron is about it. Once the shaft gets longer and the loft decreases most amateurs start hitting sideways shots. 

None , hence why they suck and should get the ball closer to the green where they have less chance to screw up. 

[pinhigh27]

23 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Actually, it's not just "single shots". The reality is that grooving a driver swing for maximum distance usually has a negative affect on the swings needed for the rest of the clubs within the bag. For example at Hoylake Tiger playing 2-iron off all the tee boxes eliminated the "hit it hard" mind set that sometimes crept into his swing when he played lots of driver shots. Consequently, without the negative influence of "hit it hard", at Hoylake Tiger's tempo-rhythm for all clubs that week was impeccable.

What is "off the planet"? At many courses only 3 to 8 yards off the fairway may mean sitting well down within grassy rough , or trees as an obstacle for the next shot, or a rock hard pan lie within a waste bunker, or an awkward angle for the line of the  forthcoming shot etc... Is 5 yards from the fairway "off the planet"?

No one actually swings for max distance. No one is swinging 100% on every swing. And improving your driver swing improves all of your clubs because it’s a similar swing with just different geometry. 
 

you act like missing the fairway is such a negative thing and that ams play us open rough. At most courses bogey and worse golfers play on the rough really isn’t an issue. Some golfers even feel more comfortable from the rough than the fairway at that skill level because the ball sits up a little more often. When I was learning and played tight  country club fairways it was a big shock. 

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Golfmetrics seems to depend on amateur player input for measuring, recording shots. This means an amateur who shoots 95 is supposed to define lie type and input same to the Golfmetrics system . A Tour player would find it challenging to define a lie and a bogey shooting amateur would not have the knowledge  to accurately do so.

Unlike Tour play shots which are measured/tracked  using monitoring equipment placed at the tournament golf course  Golfmetrics expects the amateur to be able to on his own measure sideways tee shots or plays from the trees or lag putt distances ? An amateur  out there  is supposed to do all that measuring for every shot for 4 hours while he shoots 90 ? That would be masochistic behavior and it's hard for me to believe more than a few people would be willing to go through all that measuring (or that there player partners would tolerate it).

 If Broadie did collect amateur shot data from Golfmetrics customers do you know if it was 2 , or, 20 , or 200, or 2,000 amateur shot recordings that he used. Has Broadie written anything confirming that his amateur play shot data came from Golfmtrics and, or, how many amateur player rounds/courses were input by him for his analysis /findings ?

This is bogus. It is not rocket science to determine the lie, its either fairway, rough, bunker, green, or OB/Penalty area.  And the tour shot link data is is recorded by volunteers with a laser range finder, not by the tour pro.  In many cases it could be from a senior citizen 30-50 yards away detailing the lie. There are plenty of amateurs who can recount every single shot on a round by memory alone and plenty who record this information as well. This notion that the amateur data isn't valid is completely false.

 

All SG is the average number of shots to hole out from a certain distance and a certain lie. The further you are from the hole, the more strokes it will take on average, it's absurd to think this applies to pros but not amateurs when pros do everything better than amateurs. All of these so called "nuances" you flat-earthers are arguing essentially get averaged out over time with a large enough data set and become less relevant than the simple distance and lie. 

[Bad9]

3 hours ago, Krt22 said:

It's amazing this is still going, when the same guy is spouting the same non-data backed BS, all while completely ignoring peer-reviewed academic research

its because he’s a troll and co tinting to spout his stupidity keeps everyone else wound up and responding to him.

[Bad9]

2 hours ago, EDT501 said:

@Fairway14 if you promise to read them with an open mind I’ll buy you his books so you can draw your own conclusions from the primary sources

 

He’s not going to read anything

[Fairway14]

1 hour ago, Krt22 said:

This is bogus. It is not rocket science to determine the lie, its either fairway, rough, bunker, green, or OB/Penalty area.  And the tour shot link data is is recorded by volunteers with a laser range finder, not by the tour pro.  In many cases it could be from a senior citizen 30-50 yards away detailing the lie. There are plenty of amateurs who can recount every single shot on a round by memory alone and plenty who record this information as well. This notion that the amateur data isn't valid is completely false.

 

All SG is the average number of shots to hole out from a certain distance and a certain lie. The further you are from the hole, the more strokes it will take on average, it's absurd to think this applies to pros but not amateurs when pros do everything better than amateurs. All of these so called "nuances" you flat-earthers are arguing essentially get averaged out over time with a large enough data set and become less relevant than the simple distance and lie. 

 

I agree the ShotLink stats compiled from Tour play might not be especially accurate, but at least it's not on the players to try and do measuring, define lies etc.. Golfmetrics is all about do-it-yourself, including the company's website, which appears to be a $29.99 GoDaddy.com special.

Here is a link to Golfmetric's FAQ section, where amateur players seek help on how to measure, define errant shots, define lie types, count score etc...

 

https://golfmetrics.com/faq/

[chippa13]

These go to 11.......

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

you act like missing the fairway is such a negative thing and that ams play us open rough. At most courses bogey and worse golfers play on the rough really isn’t an issue. Some golfers even feel more comfortable from the rough than the fairway at that skill level because the ball sits up a little more often.

 

👍  I tried telling him that pages ago. Crickets.

 

A LOT of ams, especially high handicappers, PREFER the rough.

[nsxguy]

8 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

You seem to be thinking that distance and course management are separate things, but the realty is they are intertwined.

 

Thank you Captain Obvious. Of course they are intertwined.

 

But they ARE different things. Your insinuation is that "distance is overrated". All other things being the same, as they are for the vast majority of tee shots, distance is king.

 

Sans course management considerations, distance is NOT overrated and that is the main point here.

 

If there's a creek crossing the fairway from 210-240 off the tee and I can only carry a driver 230 MAX, course management suggests I hit less than driver.

 

If that same creek crosses 180-210 I have a decision to make.

 

If that same creek is NOT there I hit driver - you know, for more distance.

 

 

P.S. Try hitting the "Return" key (NOT the "Enter" key) on your smartphone every few sentences. It'll at least make your silliness a little easier to read.

 

And now I think I'll consider putting you on "Ignore" as I suspect many have already done. All your shuckin' and jivin' is making me want to dance.

[Wormkiller]

On 7/2/2021 at 1:33 AM, Fairway14 said:

1) distance is highly significant to scoring

 

More quantitative evidence exists proving this myth correct, than evidence proving otherwise.  Ie: the entire concept of strokes gained versus the purely anecdotal evidence of Golf Sidekick's "philosophy".

[dap]

In boxing a good big guy will always beat a good little guy. In golf a good long hitter will have more advantage than a good short hitter. The short game aspect of golf will lessen that advantage a bit so there are a lot of short hitters that can beat long hitters. 

 

The argument that not always going for your maximum distance should be a separate issue. It’s true that most pros are swinging less than their max to increase accuracy and their day to day consistency but they have distance to burn. They have more than enough distance to play tour length courses. Almost all can reach par 5’s in two and short irons into most par 4’s. The advantage that a long hitter like Rahm has over a shorter hitter like Morikawa is not that much. The advantage can easily be made up with better accuracy and short game as just shown in the Open. Morikawa is more accurate with his 6 iron than the average tour player with their PW. 

 

Amateurs need more distance if they want to play championship length courses. 230 yard drives will be a struggle playing 6800 yards courses to scratch unless you have tour accuracy and short games which not many ams have. In any case for most ams hitting long bombs is half the fun. They are not playing for a living so lowest scores possible all the time is not that important.

 

There are 2 ways to play to scratch for example. Hitting it short and accurate with a great short game shooting around par all the time. Second way is bombing it long but have over par and under par scores. Most ams would prefer the latter. More fun and the chicks dig the long ball lol.

 

 

[Fairway14]

5 hours ago, dap said:

In boxing a good big guy will always beat a good little guy. In golf a good long hitter will have more advantage than a good short hitter. The short game aspect of golf will lessen that advantage a bit so there are a lot of short hitters that can beat long hitters. 

 

The argument that not always going for your maximum distance should be a separate issue. It’s true that most pros are swinging less than their max to increase accuracy and their day to day consistency but they have distance to burn. They have more than enough distance to play tour length courses. Almost all can reach par 5’s in two and short irons into most par 4’s. The advantage that a long hitter like Rahm has over a shorter hitter like Morikawa is not that much. The advantage can easily be made up with better accuracy and short game as just shown in the Open. Morikawa is more accurate with his 6 iron than the average tour player with their PW. 

 

Amateurs need more distance if they want to play championship length courses. 230 yard drives will be a struggle playing 6800 yards courses to scratch unless you have tour accuracy and short games which not many ams have. In any case for most ams hitting long bombs is half the fun. They are not playing for a living so lowest scores possible all the time is not that important.

 

There are 2 ways to play to scratch for example. Hitting it short and accurate with a great short game shooting around par all the time. Second way is bombing it long but have over par and under par scores. Most ams would prefer the latter. More fun and the chicks dig the long ball lol.

 

 

 

Excellent post revealing true understanding of the game !

The subject of trying for maximum distance is an interesting one that is relevant to swing technique, scoring, pace of play and more. For example, when Tour pros are asked what is the most common mistake they see their Pro Am partners make the answer is almost always "they don't take enough club for their approach shots". The Tour pros say this because they notice week after week that the amateur player golf balls are short of greens all day long. I'll start a separate thread for this topic and title it "should you swing 7 iron or 8-iron ?"

[pinhigh27]

2 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Excellent post revealing true understanding of the game !

The subject of trying for maximum distance is an interesting one that is relevant to swing technique, scoring, pace of play and more. For example, when Tour pros are asked what is the most common mistake they see their Pro Am partners make the answer is almost always "they don't take enough club for their approach shots". The Tour pros say this because they notice week after week that the amateur player golf balls are short of greens all day long. I'll start a separate thread for this topic and title it "should you swing 7 iron or 8-iron ?"

Literally no one on tour is swinging for max distance.  Bryson has videos where he swings 10 mph faster than he does on tour. 
 

Stop trolling 

[EddieEdwards]

There definately is a strong corelation between distance and scoring.  Granted, there's the unicorns out there getting it done banging it out there 230 take money from guys 50 yards longer off the tee.  Really though the 270+ guys are shooting 70s/80s and 230 90s/100s.

 

I don't think I've ever played with a 230 hitter that could shoot par at 7000 regularly.  I'm sure the shorter lpga players can, even if they can't beat a 4 handicap.

 

A 150 yrd shot is a 150yrd shot.  While there are certain advantages to hitting less club, it's not what some of you are making it out to be.  I'd take the lpga player and their 7 iron over a 4 handicap hitting a wedge.

 

Strokes gained is an attempt to quantify the numbers not a strategy. 

 

Larger clubs are more forgiving, driver is might be the correct club off the tee for the guy struggling to make contact.

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, EddieEdwards said:

 

 

Larger clubs are more forgiving, driver is might be the correct club off the tee for the guy struggling to make contact.

I think one part people completely dismiss about driver is not only it's face size, but how forgiving it is with low point. It's the only club in the bag where you can have low point well in front or well behind the ball and still get a playable result. This mythical 18 handicap that can hit 8i 160 and straight every time but can't keep driver in play definitely doesn't have that command of their low point

[PracticeSwinger]

25 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I think one part people completely dismiss about driver is not only it's face size, but how forgiving it is with low point. It's the only club in the bag where you can have low point well in front or well behind the ball and still get a playable result. This mythical 18 handicap that can hit 8i 160 and straight every time but can't keep driver in play definitely doesn't have that command of their low point

And on the flip side - the ‘not so outlier’ scratch guy discussed here that plays 7,200yds course with 12ish GIR hitting systematically approaches from 190-210 in; thus exhibiting a tremendous ball striking… while only hitting the forgiving driver 230yds or so… something doesn’t add up (unless they are really hitting it at 80% of their speed - not only feel wise haha)

[Krt22]

3 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

And on the flip side - the ‘not so outlier’ scratch guy discussed here that plays 7,200yds course with 12ish GIR hitting systematically approaches from 190-210 in; thus exhibiting a tremendous ball striking… while only hitting the forgiving driver 230yds or so… something doesn’t add up (unless they are really hitting it at 80% of their speed - not only feel wise haha)

I'm sure those guys strike their 3W and hybrid better than Morikawa strikes his 6i.

[glk]

10 hours ago, dap said:

In boxing a good big guy will always beat a good little guy. In golf a good long hitter will have more advantage than a good short hitter. The short game aspect of golf will lessen that advantage a bit so there are a lot of short hitters that can beat long hitters. 

 

The argument that not always going for your maximum distance should be a separate issue. It’s true that most pros are swinging less than their max to increase accuracy and their day to day consistency but they have distance to burn. They have more than enough distance to play tour length courses. Almost all can reach par 5’s in two and short irons into most par 4’s. The advantage that a long hitter like Rahm has over a shorter hitter like Morikawa is not that much. The advantage can easily be made up with better accuracy and short game as just shown in the Open. Morikawa is more accurate with his 6 iron than the average tour player with their PW. 

 

Amateurs need more distance if they want to play championship length courses. 230 yard drives will be a struggle playing 6800 yards courses to scratch unless you have tour accuracy and short games which not many ams have. In any case for most ams hitting long bombs is half the fun. They are not playing for a living so lowest scores possible all the time is not that important.

 

There are 2 ways to play to scratch for example. Hitting it short and accurate with a great short game shooting around par all the time. Second way is bombing it long but have over par and under par scores. Most ams would prefer the latter. More fun and the chicks dig the long ball lol.

 

 

really.   Rahm has a 13 yard distance advantage over Morikawa (307 to 294) this season - and he has a +.5 SGT per round over Collin due to this.     half a stroke is "not that much"?   Folks really need to stop with this unsupported anecdotal stuff.

 

and amateurs don't care about score - just hitting bombs cause chick did it?   Really - i imagine you can find some but how many chicks are out of the course looking to hook up or want to talk about someone long game?   Just please.

 

And on 2 ways to play scratch

 

and pro's have issues with getting the ball to and past the hole too especially front ones.    From Scott Fawcett on #1 at Torry South in the Farmers this year.

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by glk

[Obee]

1 hour ago, glk said:

And on 2 ways to play scratch

 

 

 

 

 

 

YES! God I hate either/or thinking. As with anything complex, there's always a continuum. Long and straight are BOTH important. It's just that long is more important than straight--when it comes to (most) tee shots. That's not that tough to agree to. Perhaps what the guy who keeps arguing really wants everyone to agree to is this: "Sometimes it's better to be short and straight on a hole than long and crooked." And that's ALSO something that's pretty easy to agree with ....

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, glk said:

really.   Rahm has a 13 yard distance advantage over Morikawa (307 to 294) this season - and he has a +.5 SGT per round over Collin due to this.     half a stroke is "not that much"?   Folks really need to stop with this unsupported anecdotal stuff.

 

and amateurs don't care about score - just hitting bombs cause chick did it?   Really - i imagine you can find some but how many chicks are out of the course looking to hook up or want to talk about someone long game?   Just please.

 

And on 2 ways to play scratch

 

and pro's have issues with getting the ball to and past the hole too especially front ones.    From Scott Fawcett on #1 at Torry South in the Farmers this year.

 

 

 

Not to mention this notion doesn't capture the fact that it's largely an illogical fallacy that long=wild and short=straight. The longest hitters (minus LD guys) generally have the most efficient and mechanically sound swings. Long drives require consistent center contract with minimal curvature, most who are short are short due to miss hits, excessive spin, and excessive spin axis. The notion that anyone can hit it 280 OB if they just swing out of their shoes or that the "controlled 70% swing" will hit every fairway at 230 is laughable. 

[glk]

12 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Not to mention this notion doesn't capture the fact that it's largely an illogical fallacy that long=wild and short=straight. The longest hitters (minus LD guys) generally have the most efficient and mechanically sound swings. Long drives require consistent center contract with minimal curvature, most who are short are short due to miss hits, excessive spin, and excessive spin axis. The notion that anyone can hit it 280 OB if they just swing out of their shoes or that the "controlled 70% swing" will hit every fairway at 230 is laughable. 

You'll recognize these - tour numbers are from 2004-2012 only - I imagine Tiger would be better had his 1999-2003 number been available and included.     

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by glk

[Barfolomew]

On 7/1/2021 at 10:33 AM, 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

 

Lets agree to disagree lol.....

 

Distance is awesome for scoring.... I like to bomb off the tee and it's sweet to sometimes be hitting wedge for my 2nd shot... plus I just added 1" to my irons and loving the extra distance with my scoring irons even more then I thought I would and it wasn't like I'm a short knocker....

 

Equipment that suits an athlete is highly underrated for good players in any sport... or maybe that's just me but I doubt it..... it frees you up to do your thing

 

I remember when I got my first Prince tennis racket in the 80s with that big old head.... was so awesome as the sweet spot was friggin huge

[Nard_S]

PGA scoring average:

 

1990's: 271.4

2000's: 269.9

2010's: 269.8

 

Brodie's work arrived in 2014. If his work is so consequential, why have scores dropped only one tenth of a stroke for 72 holes before and since?

 

USGA card carrying scratch players account for 1.6% of all golfers. Average distance for a  25 year old male is 270 yards. For a 50 year old it's 238 yards. So 50  y.o. bunting to 238 and playing to scratch is average according to the USGA. Not a unicorn, not an aberration or mirage. Certainly not a bomber. Google it data is there.

[pinhigh27]

9 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

PGA scoring average:

 

1990's: 271.4

2000's: 269.9

2010's: 269.8

 

Brodie's work arrived in 2014. If his work is so consequential, why have scores dropped only one tenth of a stroke for 72 holes before and since?

 

USGA card carrying scratch players account for 1.6% of all golfers. Average distance for a  25 year old male is 270 yards. For a 50 year old it's 238 yards. So 50  y.o. bunting to 238 and playing to scratch is average according to the USGA. Not a unicorn, not an aberration or mirage. Certainly not a bomber. Google it data is there.

What ? How does this make any sense ? Courses have gotten more difficult. Raw scoring average means nothing. 
 

they’d be an average 50 yr old scratch but not an average scratch of all ages. There is a difference and likely far more scratch golfers in their 20s and 30s than 50s.