golf's three most overrated currently common beliefs ?

[Loki]

Golf clubs Aaron Olberhouser reps on Golf Channel will make you a better player.

[Fairway14]

1 hour ago, doobz said:

 The data shows that at the highest level of golf it actually doesn't even matter if it's farther and in the rough. 

 

Why do amateur players believe Tour data/stats are relevant to the amateur game ? In other words, hitting greens from the rough, trees, or other less than ideal lies is easier for a Tour pro to accomplish than it is for an amateur.

[Robert L.]

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.

1. I agree. Driving the ball straight with some distance makes playing a hole a lot easier. Army Golf is tough to play!

2. As far as club fitting goes I can see where is has some benefit for some players. Me, I'm 5'9" tall, I've always played a regular flex and length shaft, and my grips are standard sized. I can walk into any golf store and hit anything they sell, provided the club's specs are for the average player. My old Golfsmith irons have True Temper Dynamic R-flex shafts, and my even older Haig Ultras also have R-flex shafts. I've never been fitted, and I don't think I'll need to be for the foreseeable future, but that of course doesn't mean anyone else can benefit from a fitting.

3. Larger heads can be easier to hit, but it's all about hitting the sweet spot on the clubface, and if you want to train yourself to hit the sweet spot then a smaller, less forgiving clubhead makes more sense.

[MrParr1Noid]

Size doesn't matter.  🙂

[anth]

1. A golf course must be lush/green/manicured to be good

 

2. The Euro Tour is second rate because they don’t get big crowds in attendance

 

3. The Masters is hard to win

[Ferguson]

1. Tour golf is good for a marriage

2. Golf brings out the best in people 

3. Swing harder in the wind 

[BHI 99]

7 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

Why do amateur players believe Tour data/stats are relevant to the amateur game ? In other words, hitting greens from the rough, trees, or other less than ideal lies is easier for a Tour pro to accomplish than it is for an amateur.

 

Bingo!

[betarhoalphadelta]

9 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

Why do amateur players believe Tour data/stats are relevant to the amateur game ? In other words, hitting greens from the rough, trees, or other less than ideal lies is easier for a Tour pro to accomplish than it is for an amateur.

 

True. But take two average bogey golfers, one who drives it 260 on average and another who drives it 230.

 

They're both just as likely to spray drives into rough, trees, etc. But the longer hitter is probably going to be playing that second shot with 2-3 clubs less than the shorter player. 

 

The flaw in the distance assumption is that shorter players always hit it straight. While it's true that 2* offline at 260 is wider dispersion than 2* offline at 230, I'm not sure there's a huge difference in fairways hit per round between equal skill longer or shorter players.

[Fairway14]

6 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

 

The flaw in the distance assumption is that shorter players always hit it straight. While it's true that 2* offline at 260 is wider dispersion than 2* offline at 230, I'm not sure there's a huge difference in fairways hit per round between equal skill longer or shorter players.

 

For the amateur game, on a 6,700 yard golf course,  230 yard consistently straight shots from the tee box is enough distance to shoot 68.

For some amateur players  achieve 230 yard consistently straight tee shots may mean leaving driver at home and playing from the par 4 and par 5 tee boxes a fairway wood , hybrid, driving iron etc... For other players achieving consistent-straight-230 may mean adjusting their driver swing technique to become geared for accuracy rather than distance. In either case, the player's entire game (and score) will benefit not just because his second shots are from fairway lies but also because the counter productive "hit it hard- hit it far" driver swing instinct is gone and will not filter thru to the clubs used for second shot approaches.

 

[Fairway14]

10 hours ago, Robert L. said:

 

3. Larger heads can be easier to hit, but it's all about hitting the sweet spot on the clubface, and if you want to train yourself to hit the sweet spot then a smaller, less forgiving clubhead makes more sense.

 

My take is that for some players larger club heads may be more challenging to swing-square at impact than a relatively small head. For my own game I tried a set jumbo size irons for a year and found them harder to consistently square at impact than my smaller head iron set. In other words I had more mishit shots with the larger head irons than I do the smaller head irons.

[Fairway14]

17 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

 

 

#3--- I think it's pretty well know a generally larger face is more forgiving than smaller face.  It's akin to broadside of a barn vs a small target.      

 Yes, I am certain everyone can agree that a large head will produce more playable shots from a mishit than a smaller head. But if the large head promotes more mishits than a smaller head is the large head truly "more forgiving"?

In other words, if a player produces 7 out of 10  solid-accurate shots with a small head and 3 out of 10 solid-accurate shots with a jumbo size head which one is more forgiving ?

[bcski]

1.  Putter fitting will fix a poor putter

 

2.  Golf WRX is a fun inviting place  🤣

 

3,  Drive for show - putt for dough

 

Those are my three overrated common beliefs.

Edited July 3, 2021 by bcski

[Whereismydivot]

"I need 7 practice swings and 15 waggles before I hit the ball. This will help my results."

(True story and I've played BEHIND this guy. We bet on the number of waggles and count them down to see who wins the bet).  His nickname: Mr. Waggles

Edited July 3, 2021 by Whereismydivot

[avanzant]

1.) Tour Issue Clubs

2.) Putter Fitting

3.) Hot Melt

[chippa13]

Golfers need smaller club heads to focus. I laugh every time someone throws out that gem.

[Pepperturbo]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

The flaw in the distance assumption is that shorter players always hit it straight. While it's true that 2* offline at 260 is wider dispersion than 2* offline at 230, I'm not sure there's a huge difference in fairways hit per round between equal skill longer or shorter players.

I know many younger short hitters, and they seldom miss the fairway, least when I am playing with them. lol  There is truth to the statement, they don't swing as hard, so less dispersion.  I am not a big hitter, but over my last 10 rds of golf, stats show I missed the fairway once with an exceptional 290+ drive.  The balance of my drives were FIR, 245-250+.   Those drives reflect me not swinging as hard as I can.  A few buddies that hit it much further than me, are in the junk more often than not.

[Tdsjfb]

"Thin to win" as my ball embeds in the back bunker.

[Pepperturbo]

The 460 head forgiveness psyche's users into thinking "its big" why the hell not swing as hard as possible only to land in the junk = in other words tour revisited.  Nothing helps the guy that want's to swing as hard as he can regardless of where the ball ends up.

[Fairway14]

23 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

 The balance of my drives were FIR, 245-250+.   Those drives reflect me not swinging as hard as I can.  A few buddies that hit it much further than me, are in the junk more often than not.

 

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.

[Fairway14]

54 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

The 460 head forgiveness psyche's users into thinking "its big" why the hell not swing as hard as possible only to land in the junk = in other words tour revisited.  Nothing helps the guy that want's to swing as hard as he can regardless of where the ball ends up.

 

Yes, that is a primary reason for why I advocate playing lots of 3-woods from par 4 and  par 5 tee boxes. Doing so takes the "hit it hard" instinct out the swing and inherently helps improve swing tempo-rhythm for all the clubs within the bag.

[klebs01]

42 minutes ago, 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.

i would love to meet this mythical person that can only hit it 230 but shoots 68 regularly on 6800 yard courses. I’ve never seen it. Most people that are shooting those scores are hitting drives 280+.

Is it possible? maybe.  But it’s definitely not the easiest or most common way to get there.  The guy hitting wedge into most holes will have a much easier time than the guy hitting hybrid. 

[Whereismydivot]

2 hours ago, klebs01 said:

i would love to meet this mythical person that can only hit it 230 but shoots 68 regularly on 6800 yard courses. I’ve never seen it. Most people that are shooting those scores are hitting drives 280+.

Is it possible? maybe.  But it’s definitely not the easiest or most common way to get there.  The guy hitting wedge into most holes will have a much easier time than the guy hitting hybrid. 

 (Caveat: Well the course length is lightly different and "regularly" is a stretch).  I know this person. His tees are 6600 yards not 6800.  I've played against him and with him in different formats. He's a former college player. His drives go about 230.  From there he can hit 3 wood or 3 iron into a lot of greens about as accurate as I hit my 9 iron.  The guy doesn't "regularly" shoot 68 but does sometimes. He realistically shoots 70-74.   I nicknamed him Ma.  Stands for "Mister Automatic". He never misses the center of the fairway.  Did I mention the guy can putt?  I have paid him too many times to mention.

[dvq9654]

37 minutes ago, Whereismydivot said:

 (Caveat: Well the course length is lightly different and "regularly" is a stretch).  I know this person. His tees are 6600 yards not 6800.  I've played against him and with him in different formats. He's a former college player. His drives go about 230.  From there he can hit 3 wood or 3 iron into a lot of greens about as accurate as I hit my 9 iron.  The guy doesn't "regularly" shoot 68 but does sometimes. He realistically shoots 70-74.   I nicknamed him Ma.  Stands for "Mister Automatic". He never misses the center of the fairway.  Did I mention the guy can putt?  I have paid him too many times to mention.

 

This is not meant to be derogatory, but how can anyone who plays at that level hit it so short? Is he diminutive in stature? Or, has his distance diminished over time cause college was a long long time ago?  I ask because most young to middle aged men with any semblance of a swing can drop a driver from shoulder height and hit it that far and he clearly has more than just a decent swing if he played collegiate and can still shoot in the 60s.  Is he swinging slow on purpose in favor of extreme accuracy?

[Fairway14]

3 hours ago, klebs01 said:

i would love to meet this mythical person that can only hit it 230 but shoots 68 regularly on 6800 yard courses.

 

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.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

I think we're taking past each other. A player (player A) capable of hitting it 260 who clubs down or dials back swing effort to hit 230 may end up more accurate than if they swing for the fences.

 

A player (player B) who has max distance of 230 can't dial it back and still hit 230 and be more accurate than their max distance baseline.

 

And if player A takes 3w off the tee and he and player B hits driver and both find fairway 230 yards out, player A will still be hitting 2 clubs less into the green than player B. That's an advantage.

 

Having more distance opens up more possibilities. It doesn't mean you have to bomb it on every hole to benefit. 

[dvq9654]

19 minutes ago, 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.

 

 

I'd argue that was a very different time than today. Through equipment and ball alone this player would more than likely hit the ball meaningfully farther (20+ years) than with wound balls and metal woods. I take your point that he was short for his day, but in today's game he'd probably be closer to a Brian Gay type than the "mythical" player who scores while driving it 230 yards on today's courses

[RickK]

On 7/2/2021 at 2:46 PM, BHI 99 said:

IIRC Jack likes lots of mounds, looks more like grass covered packing bubbles. 

BINGO!!!

[Fairway14]

54 minutes ago, dvq9654 said:

 

I'd argue that was a very different time than today. Through equipment and ball alone this player would more than likely hit the ball meaningfully farther (20+ years) than with wound balls and metal woods. I take your point that he was short for his day, but in today's game he'd probably be closer to a Brian Gay type than the "mythical" player who scores while driving it 230 yards on today's courses

Mahaffey played and won on courses of 7,000 yards. There are amateurs at just about every club in the world shooting par or better golf hitting 230 yard tee shots. I am playing in a skins game Monday that has a  field of 44 players and several of them will break 75 without hitting a tee shot longer than 230 yards all day long.

"Today's courses" are the same as the courses of 50 years ago. Some Tour event courses have in the last 25 years have added some new tee boxes

changing the scorecard total from 6,900 to 7,200 , but those tee blocks are not used for amateur play and even the Tour events don't have the tee blocks all the way back for every hole.  Also, remember that for a course's few especially long par 4 and par 3 holes the course architect uses elevated tee boxes, down sloped fairways, wide fairways, large greens, open fronts to the greens etc...

For this forum, for any amateur trying to break 80, 90, 100, my point is that amateurs all over the world regularly shoot 72 or better without hitting drives longer than 230 yards. So, it is misguided to somehow think that " great distance is needed" for amateur golf. Bryson DeChambeau may believe that to shoot 64 , and, or, win lots of Tour events he needs to hit his driver 375 instead of 350, but that's got nothing to do with amateur play.

[RickK]

On the distance topic...I am not a long hitter and at my age never will be.  However, I play with guys my age who can still bomb it.  I promise you, I think guys who hit it farther thus taking less club into the green have an advantage over guys who are 30-40 yards shorter hitting much more club into the green.  Also, some courses require you to bring the ball in higher to get closer to the pins.  A guy hitting a 9 iron into a green has much better chance than a guy hitting say a 5 or 6 iron simply because of the ball flight.  Sure wish I could find some of the distance I have lost.  

Edited July 3, 2021 by RickK

[dvq9654]

1 hour ago, Fairway14 said:

Mahaffey played and won on courses of 7,000 yards. There are amateurs at just about every club in the world shooting par or better golf hitting 230 yard tee shots. I am playing in a skins game Monday that has a  field of 44 players and several of them will break 75 without hitting a tee shot longer than 230 yards all day long.

"Today's courses" are the same as the courses of 50 years ago. Some Tour event courses have in the last 25 years have added some new tee boxes

changing the scorecard total from 6,900 to 7,200 , but those tee blocks are not used for amateur play and even the Tour events don't have the tee blocks all the way back for every hole.  Also, remember that for a course's few especially long par 4 and par 3 holes the course architect uses elevated tee boxes, down sloped fairways, wide fairways, large greens, open fronts to the greens etc...

For this forum, for any amateur trying to break 80, 90, 100, my point is that amateurs all over the world regularly shoot 72 or better without hitting drives longer than 230 yards. So, it is misguided to somehow think that " great distance is needed" for amateur golf. Bryson DeChambeau may believe that to shoot 64 , and, or, win lots of Tour events he needs to hit his driver 375 instead of 350, but that's got nothing to do with amateur play.

 

Fair points, but I really don't think pointing to the 1-2 short hitters who've had success proves that hitting it longer isn't an advantage.

 

I also would very much question your statement saying "amateurs all over the world regularly shoot 72 or better without hitting drivers longer than 230 yards." I've never seen it and I doubt it's nearly as common as amateurs hitting it 300 and shooting 72 or better. And from what tees? I could shoot 68 from the yellows never hitting more than a 3 iron, but what does that prove? 

 

There's a reason handicap correlates strongly with driving distance. Being closer to the hole is generally better and distance is generally a byproduct of a fundamentally sound swing. I'm not saying you can't play great golf while being shorter and no knock if distance isn't priority, but telling people that distance is overrated just isn't true. It also risks leading people in the wrong direction, as added distance can hugely impact one's game for the positive.