golf's three most overrated currently common beliefs ?

[smashdn]

14 hours ago, Nard_S said:

Saying "better a #9i in than a #4i" is silly. We need analytics for that? We need "data", lol.

 

It actually was more like "fairways and greens," "drive for show...," and "lay up to a comfortable yardage" that were rebuked.  Things that were pretty well ingrained for years.  It actually did take data to disprove some of those maxims.

 

Not only that but the data is useful to know to support (give confidence in) what you are doing on the course and working on while practicing.  The telling part to that was that you had PGA Tour pros thinking they were bad in one category of the game relying on the old standard stats when in actuality they were near the very top in that category when you actually compared them to their peers.

[larrybud]

13 hours ago, Obee said:

 

So I'm the proverbial "235-yard driver" that the OP speaks about.

 

Shhh Obee, we are all unicorns and don't exist!

[BombinJim]

On 7/20/2021 at 12:41 AM, dap said:

Morikawa is more accurate with his 6 iron than the average tour player with their PW. 

Fake news.

[betarhoalphadelta]

12 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

 It's true, Broadie's message has led too many amateur players down a harmful path.

 

Broadie's message or your strawman version of it?

 

[Nard_S]

33 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

It actually was more like "fairways and greens," "drive for show...," and "lay up to a comfortable yardage" that were rebuked.  Things that were pretty well ingrained for years.  It actually did take data to disprove some of those maxims.

 

Not only that but the data is useful to know to support (give confidence in) what you are doing on the course and working on while practicing.  The telling part to that was that you had PGA Tour pros thinking they were bad in one category of the game relying on the old standard stats when in actuality they were near the very top in that category when you actually compared them to their peers.

Fair point. But however you slice it PGA scoring is flat. For every Bryson doing it in a US Open, there's a couple like Molinari at Augusta's 15th in 2019. What's also under played is most ams cannot effectively hit out of the rough or handle awkward lies. So fully applying SG doctrine to ams is not the same as pro's doing it. Not apples to apples. Leaving a better approach angle and lie is even more important for amateurs and that also goes for PGA players with less than Herculean strength. Apparently SG cloaks itself by saying 'well by all means be strategic" but then says winning strategy is to not be strategic. This stuff reminds me of gambling videos where guy advocates to double and triple down after losing several rounds because odds are at some point you win. Works in the abstract, but can be quite unnerving in real time. Enthusiasts have limited time and resources to make their once weekly round fun, so telling them to be like Bryson at the expense of going for the low lying fruit of cleaning up game is somewhat a dead end for most. If you say SG is a tool to clearly evaluate where you stand, I'm down for that. I think Decade is good stuff, so maybe Brodie's work will bear greater fruit. But to date, it's a bit of a nothing burger to me and there's zero data contradicting that view at the pro level.

 

I've said my peace, I'm done here. Enjoy.

[Obee]

1 hour ago, Nard_S said:

Fair point. But however you slice it PGA scoring is flat. For every Bryson doing it in a US Open, there's a couple like Molinari at Augusta's 15th in 2019. What's also under played is most ams cannot effectively hit out of the rough or handle awkward lies. So fully applying SG doctrine to ams is not the same as pro's doing it. Not apples to apples. Leaving a better approach angle and lie is even more important for amateurs and that also goes for PGA players with less than Herculean strength. Apparently SG cloaks itself by saying 'well by all means be strategic" but then says winning strategy is to not be strategic. This stuff reminds me of gambling videos where guy advocates to double and triple down after losing several rounds because odds are at some point you win. Works in the abstract, but can be quite unnerving in real time. Enthusiasts have limited time and resources to make their once weekly round fun, so telling them to be like Bryson at the expense of going for the low lying fruit of cleaning up game is somewhat a dead end for most. If you say SG is a tool to clearly evaluate where you stand, I'm down for that. I think Decade is good stuff, so maybe Brodie's work will bear greater fruit. But to date, it's a bit of a nothing burger to me and there's zero data contradicting that view at the pro level.

 

I've said my peace, I'm done here. Enjoy.

 

"Cleaning up the low hanging fruit." I like that, and it make total sense. Much easier for many 14 'cappers to learn a new pitch shot technique and putting routine than it is for them to overhaul driver, even though learning to hit it long(er) and straight(er) is often the best thing they can do for their games.

 

That said, I would love to eventually see some real amateur data on angles/in-between shots and what they mean for the 8 - 20 'capper. Angles and half-shots matter very little to Tour pros because:

• They're incredibly talented
• They play in consistently immaculate conditions
• The vast majority have "every shot in the book" when it comes to accessing tucked pins inside 100 yards

One thing Strokes Gained does not do well is taking into account "outliers," and I've mentioned this before. In statistics we can ignore outliers because we treat them as just numbers. But in golf, the outliers are real people. Real golfers with massive holes in their games who love to play and want to score as low as they can.

 

I would also wager that the number of outliers (those well outside the bell curve) among mid and high 'cappers is significantly more than in professional golf -- but right now, we don't really know that because we just don't have the millions of shots that we do from Shot Link for amateurs.

 

The examples I use are the decent handicap guys and gals (4 to 8 index?) who simply can't hit half shots. Who frequently blade/chunk them and take double and worse from 40 yards to elevated greens, but who can make par or better a decent amount of time from 80 to 120. These people exist. I've seen them over thousands of rounds of golf in my life. They butcher the same shots over and over and over. Put them in a bunker, and they're fine, but ask them to hit a simple pitch shot from 25 yards where they have to fly any type of hazard (deep rough, a bunker, etc.) and they absolutely melt down.

 

These people are absolutely better off being 80 to 120 than being 45 to certain holes in certain conditions. And they know what those holes are, they are just too stubborn/stupid to lay up and play a full wedge.

 

The answer, of course, is to get over the pitching yips, but many people never do -- and for those people, it's better to have a 3/4 or full shot than a pitch. And yes, I know that people don't lay-up perfectly. But it's pretty easy for a 5-capper who's a decent striker of the ball to lay up to a 40 yard range (80ish to 120ish) rather than take 3-wood to "get as close as he can" on a par 5 to an elevated green with a fronting bunker where they've made double or triple from 40 yards short half the time because they skull or chunk their initial shot 75% of the time.

 

These are real golfers and Strokes Gained/Fawcett wants to pretend they don't exist because ... I'm not sure why ... but it probably has something to do with how they'd have to acknowledge these people and their severe weaknesses -- something that people who are selling something don't like to do because it makes marketing more difficult.

 

I could be wrong about my hypothesis about those with significant pitching issues -- but I don't think so. I'd love to see some hard data on certain buddies with whom I've played hundreds of rounds and find out if, on certain hole types, he scores better from 30 to 50 yards than he does from 80 to 120. I would be shocked if he did, but I would love to see the data.

 

Here's how bad one guy is/was: from 30 to 50 yards away in the fairway, he finally took to putting the ball on certain holes -- and I'm not talking in Scotland, I'm talking right here in California. Putting through 30 to 40 yards of Bermuda fairway -- something literally no one does unless they are desperate and know that they can't hit a 40-yard shot to an elevated green to save their mother's life. This guy was a former 1 to +1 whose driving was/is elite for his age and whose full wedge game is superb. He just has ... ahem ... "holes" in his game.

 

I do love SG, as I think it's been quite illuminating for golf and golfers. I just wish we had and understood more individual golfer data.

 

Edited July 21, 2021 by Obee

[Krt22]

15 hours ago, Obee said:

 

So I'm the proverbial "235-yard driver" that the OP speaks about. I can definitely still break par on a 6800+ yard course, but those rounds are getting fewer and farther in between. And I'm a nobody. Just a good scratch/below amateur golfer who has been competing for a long time. I carry driver 225 to 235. All in distance of 245 max at sea level. My average drive if I were to do the whole "2 measured holes per round" would probably be just below 240 yards.

 

 

Anywho ... just some real world examples from a guy who actually hits is 235ish, so take that for what it's worth .... 🙂

 

With all due respect Obee, you are not a nobody. Longtime scratch/plus golfers are not common and it's a relatively known (on here) that your length limitations are largely due to legitimate physical limitations. You have adapted and your high skill level/experience allows you to still score. Not to mention numerous sub PGA tour average putts per round helping the cause.  For every single statistical distribution, there are outliers. I play with 2 guys very much like yourself, who are a bit older, used to be elite ams, and now just dont have tremendous length. Instead they are great with longer clubs and make up ground with wizard like short game and putting. They can still compete....and they can still throw up a big number if their came is slightly off (relative to their index) Modeling your game/swing after them is similar to telling your avg 20 index to swing it like Furyk or bow their wrist like DJ. For 99/100 it would be a train wreck

 

Realistically speaking, these handful of players (yourself included) are statistical outliers. You play at a high level despite your length, not because of it, which is a very different than the argument the OP is making. The title of the thread is "common" beliefs that are (not) over-rated, meaning we are looking at the mean +/- 1 sigma. Someone who has been scratch of better for decades is not at all common and likely 3 sigma from the mean. These outliers do not invalidate the statistics as a whole and thus your average golfer simply should not model their game around them. Oddly enough, golfers are some of the most illogical group of people I have ever encountered, as so many of them sincerely think they are outliers that can beat most statistical averages.  If you are sub 50 with zero physical limitations, 250+ is not an unrealistic goal for anyone single digit or better(which I see all the time at my club), if you are 40 or under even more. If you are 60+ this is an entirely different conversation in general.

 

I think the main point most non-data deniers are trying to make, is you should model your game around the meat of the distribution and not those on the fringe, which is essentially the basis of the SG methodology as a whole.  (and why the OP is a bogus troll attempt)

[Krt22]

4 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

Correlation does not equal causation. 

Such a message is lost on anyone who believes opinions and anecdotes trump data and science.

[PracticeSwinger]

1 hour ago, Obee said:

 

"Cleaning up the low hanging fruit." I like that, and it make total sense. Much easier for many 14 'cappers to learn a new pitch shot technique and putting routine than it is for them to overhaul driver, even though learning to hit it long(er) and straight(er) is often the best thing they can do for their games.

 

That said, I would love to eventually see some real amateur data on angles/in-between shots and what they mean for the 8 - 20 'capper. Angles and half-shots matter very little to Tour pros because:

• They're incredibly talented
• They play in consistently immaculate conditions
• The vast majority have "every shot in the book" when it comes to accessing tucked pins inside 100 yards

One thing Strokes Gained does not do well is taking into account "outliers," and I've mentioned this before. In statistics we can ignore outliers because we treat them as just numbers. But in golf, the outliers are real people. Real golfers with massive holes in their games who love to play and want to score as low as they can.

 

I would also wager that the number of outliers (those well outside the bell curve) among mid and high 'cappers is significantly more than in professional golf -- but right now, we don't really know that because we just don't have the millions of shots that we do from Shot Link for amateurs.

 

The examples I use are the decent handicap guys and gals (4 to 8 index?) who simply can't hit half shots. Who frequently blade/chunk them and take double and worse from 40 yards to elevated greens, but who can make par or better a decent amount of time from 80 to 120. These people exist. I've seen them over thousands of rounds of golf in my life. They butcher the same shots over and over and over. Put them in a bunker, and they're fine, but ask them to hit a simple pitch shot from 25 yards where they have to fly any type of hazard (deep rough, a bunker, etc.) and they absolutely melt down.

 

These people are absolutely better off being 80 to 120 than being 45 to certain holes in certain conditions. And they know what those holes are, they are just too stubborn/stupid to lay up and play a full wedge.

 

The answer, of course, is to get over the pitching yips, but many people never do -- and for those people, it's better to have a 3/4 or full shot than a pitch. And yes, I know that people don't lay-up perfectly. But it's pretty easy for a 5-capper who's a decent striker of the ball to lay up to a 40 yard range (80ish to 120ish) rather than take 3-wood to "get as close as he can" on a par 5 to an elevated green with a fronting bunker where they've made double or triple from 40 yards short half the time because they skull or chunk their initial shot 75% of the time.

 

These are real golfers and Strokes Gained/Fawcett wants to pretend they don't exist because ... I'm not sure why ... but it probably has something to do with how they'd have to acknowledge these people and their severe weaknesses -- something that people who are selling something don't like to do because it makes marketing more difficult.

 

I could be wrong about my hypothesis about those with significant pitching issues -- but I don't think so. I'd love to see some hard data on certain buddies with whom I've played hundreds of rounds and find out if, on certain hole types, he scores better from 30 to 50 yards than he does from 80 to 120. I would be shocked if he did, but I would love to see the data.

 

Here's how bad one guy is/was: from 30 to 50 yards away in the fairway, he finally took to putting the ball on certain holes -- and I'm not talking in Scotland, I'm talking right here in California. Putting through 30 to 40 yards of Bermuda fairway -- something literally no one does unless they are desperate and know that they can't hit a 40-yard shot to an elevated green to save their mother's life. This guy was a former 1 to +1 whose driving was/is elite for his age and whose full wedge game is superb. He just has ... ahem ... "holes" in his game.

 

I do love SG, as I think it's been quite illuminating for golf and golfers. I just wish we had and understood more individual golfer data.

 

Very interesting post – and @Krt22 sums it up best (that post is golden)… and I can attest to the decent player (7.1 cap as of now; been playing for a year) that has difficulties with half shots… so I can illustrate with my game, it is obviously anecdotal but we can draw interesting conclusions nonetheless in my opinion…

 

I’ve got a master’s degree in statistics – so everything in my rounds is logged haha… total driving distance is 260yds / 9.7 GIR (71% from 50yds in, 59% from 125yds in) / u&d 24%... So, as you can probably deduce: decent ball striking (nothing exceptional for sure) but atrocious close range save numbers compared to scratch players…

 

Suppose I get to a 520yds par5 hole without anything badly penal (usual fairway bunkers, rough, trees offering a relatively large corridor)… having looked at SG and DECADE, my intentions are always: driver (260) / 3w (230) leaving me 30-40-50 yds in and never, let’s play it to 230+180 leaving me 110 yds in…

 

I usually don’t get that 3rd short shot close enough – 16ft on average… and lose that birdie opportunity to par… knowing very well that if I can practice and up my game from that close range; it’ll eventually shove strokes and lower that index… rather than trying for the ‘safe route' (3w cone dispersion being the same as driver but obviously smaller dispersion due to distance) of having a full 110 shot in which, right now, might get me nearly as close to that half shot… but would be detrimental in the long run if I can improve my short game… my 2 cents

Edited July 21, 2021 by MtlJayMan

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, Nard_S said:

For every Bryson doing it in a US Open, there's a couple like Molinari at Augusta's 15th in 2019.

 

Statistically speaking what either do means little to the generalities of the whole.  @Krt22 brings up the outliers.  There are both PGA Tour outliers and amateur outliers.  Even outliers within the individual data sets.

 

You have to keep in mind that if you use the SG numbers as an on course strategy to dictate your play it does not guarantee a better result.  Sort of the Law of Large numbers at play.  The more you follow that same strategy the more often the average will resemble the result.

 

Just like in baseball where there are certainly times when the play in that situation is to bunt or hit and run or whatever, the circumstances of that particular situation are not what you build the generality around.

 

Golf had some false generalities that were created, this is my guess only, on positive outcomes or false appearances.  Laying up to a certain yardage and the importance of putting for example. 

 

2 hours ago, Nard_S said:

What's also under played is most ams cannot effectively hit out of the rough or handle awkward lies. So fully applying SG doctrine to ams is not the same as pro's doing it. Not apples to apples. Leaving a better approach angle and lie is even more important for amateurs and that also goes for PGA players with less than Herculean strength.

 

Agree with that.  Comparing your game to a Pro's when it comes to abilities is not super beneficial in most respects.  Where I did find it beneficial was to compare my SG numbers to Pro's SG numbers to sort of formulate where the ceiling was and how much "meat was left on the bone" so to speak.

 

PGA players, as a whole are a fairly homogenous bunch.  Ams on the other hand are all over the freaking map in abilities and capabilities.

 

2 hours ago, Nard_S said:

Apparently SG cloaks itself by saying 'well by all means be strategic" but then says winning strategy is to not be strategic.

 

Not sure I follow fully what you are saying here.  SG is a long term strategy where when employed, over the long run, gets you closer to an expected result.  It is very much a "more often than not" type of approach when employed for on course decisions.

 

If you are referring to what Broadie found regarding putting then yeah, you can't really build a strategy around something that is mostly luck.  (Referring to his findings that most winners on tour did so as a result of getting hot with the putter, which he found you couldn't really count on or replicate that level of performance week in and week out.)

 

2 hours ago, Nard_S said:

This stuff reminds me of gambling videos where guy advocates to double and triple down after losing several rounds because odds are at some point you win. Works in the abstract, but can be quite unnerving in real time. Enthusiasts have limited time and resources to make their once weekly round fun, so telling them to be like Bryson at the expense of going for the low lying fruit of cleaning up game is somewhat a dead end for most.

 

I think that is where if you only have read Broadie and ESC then you do leave with that feeling.  I have said on here before if you then pick up and read Lowest Score Wins, it expounds on the findings and puts it into "my golf game" perspective that Broadie didn't go to those lengths with.

 

But I think you are spot on with how you cannot simply employ BDC's approach (based upon whatever) and expect to replicate his results if you play once per week.  There is a different goal and dynamic going on with Tour play vs Am play.  You and I want our next round to be our best round.  The one after that can be a clunker and not impact our livelihood.  Pros need four serviceable rounds.  To make money they need to be around the top third of the field consistently and ready to catch that lightning in the bottle occasionally to really make hay.

 

In regards to what I bolded, you really need to read Lowest Score Wins if you have not.  They take the SG "findings" and detail how you would apply it to your very next round and how you would/could build a practice plan around them to make yourself better.  It takes into account not only how much ceiling there is between your current game level and where you could be (choose high to mid cap, mid to low, mid to scratch, mid to tour pro, whatever you want to bite off).  The other thing it does well is correlate what things you can practice to get benefit in that skill to other golf skills where you would also see an ancillary benefit.  For instance, improving your ball-striking.  It will not only help you improve your SG-Approach 150 and less, but also longer approaches and to some extent pitching/around the green, probably even fairway bunker play.  You could spend time working on getting better at playing from fairway bunkers but the opportunities where you could use that skill to lower your scores don't occur very often and working on iron play helps fairway bunker play (and other aspects) too.

 

2 hours ago, Nard_S said:

If you say SG is a tool to clearly evaluate where you stand, I'm down for that. I think Decade is good stuff, so maybe Brodie's work will bear greater fruit. But to date, it's a bit of a nothing burger to me and there's zero data contradicting that view at the pro level.

 

I've said my peace, I'm done here. Enjoy.

 

I am not familiar with decade.  Broadie's work was the foundation written by a financial analyst who used better data to explain golf.  I think expecting his work alone to transform golf is asking a bit much.  That being said his work has transformed golf stats and others who have the golf background first and foremost have done a better job of applying it.

 

What sort of data would you expect to correlate that it has had an impact?

[Krt22]

6 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

 

 

 

I am not familiar with decade.  Broadie's work was the foundation written by a financial analyst who used better data to explain golf.  I think expecting his work alone to transform golf is asking a bit much.  That being said his work has transformed golf stats and others who have the golf background first and foremost have done a better job of applying it.

 

 

Decade is a course management methodology developed by Scott Fawcett, largely based on Broadie's SG methodology. He essentially takes shotlink and SG data to formulate course strategy. He can take the data from any given hole/tournament and show what the scoring avg would/should be based tee shot choice/outcome as well as approach shot choice/outcome. The jist is you should be "aggressive' and hit driver every chance you can get, as long as your miss window is sufficiently large (65-70 yards). With the miss window basically being a full penalty shot (pot bunker, PA, OB, trees, etc). The opposite is true for approach shots, most golfers (pros included) should be much more conservative with their approach shots because avoiding bogey is much more important than making birdie for any given hole (except getable par5s)

 

On such risk/reward par 5s (and short par4s), the scoring average almost always favors those who go for it, with the one caveat being those who go for it tend to be those who can actually reach it, again showing how advantageous length is to scoring.

Edited July 21, 2021 by Krt22

[The Pearl]

16 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

 It's true, Broadie's message has led too many amateur players down a harmful path.

This is hilarious.

 

I play with a rotation of about 8 or 9 different guys.  Not a single one of them have heard of Broadie, let alone read his book.  

[Krt22]

Just now, The Pearl said:

This is hilarious.

 

I play with a rotation of about 8 or 9 different guys.  Not a single one of them have heard of Broadie, let alone read his book.  

But quite a few who have not read the book and do not have a firm grasp of the material, will argue to the wits end that it's wrong. 

[The Pearl]

16 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Tee box play is very important but the driver is not.  I believe driver is  overrated and harms the scoring for most amateur players.  It's good to see TM is maintaining its "mini driver" concept , a 300 CC head size with a 43.75" shaft, because that type of tee box club will actually help many amateur players hit more fairways and score better than they do with a 460CC  head size 45" shaft club.

 

I play with 3 different rotating groups of single to mid- double digit players.  I also make several golf trips a year and play many rounds with random players when my wife travels for work. I also make a couple trips to my dad's retirement community each year where the golfer's are mostly 65 to 85.

 

The driver, is by far the most consistent and easiest club that nearly everybody hits decent.  

 

By far, the primary group that struggles with the driver is the bro crew that is out there once a week trying to smash it as far as they can for bragging rights. 

 

 

 

[The Pearl]

6 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

Or they could just use a bigger head with a shorter shaft. A 300 cc head is inherently stupid. It's less forgiving and you still can't really hit it off the deck. Why not just play a driver at 43.75 if thats what you want. There is a reason essentially no good players have these in the bag. It is non-versatile, one trick pony. Previous mini drivers sucked too. Spun way too much and went shorter than a normal 3 wood. Why would I ever use that. 

 

 

Tom Wishon has talked endlessly about this.  Shorter drivers, properly weighted with the proper shaft and with the correct loft.

 

Most who struggle would drastically improve with a basic fitting.

 

[The Pearl]

2 hours ago, Obee said:

 

"Cleaning up the low hanging fruit." I like that, and it make total sense. Much easier for many 14 'cappers to learn a new pitch shot technique and putting routine than it is for them to overhaul driver, even though learning to hit it long(er) and straight(er) is often the best thing they can do for their games.

 

That said, I would love to eventually see some real amateur data on angles/in-between shots and what they mean for the 8 - 20 'capper. Angles and half-shots matter very little to Tour pros because:

• They're incredibly talented
• They play in consistently immaculate conditions
• The vast majority have "every shot in the book" when it comes to accessing tucked pins inside 100 yards

One thing Strokes Gained does not do well is taking into account "outliers," and I've mentioned this before. In statistics we can ignore outliers because we treat them as just numbers. But in golf, the outliers are real people. Real golfers with massive holes in their games who love to play and want to score as low as they can.

 

I would also wager that the number of outliers (those well outside the bell curve) among mid and high 'cappers is significantly more than in professional golf -- but right now, we don't really know that because we just don't have the millions of shots that we do from Shot Link for amateurs.

 

The examples I use are the decent handicap guys and gals (4 to 8 index?) who simply can't hit half shots. Who frequently blade/chunk them and take double and worse from 40 yards to elevated greens, but who can make par or better a decent amount of time from 80 to 120. These people exist. I've seen them over thousands of rounds of golf in my life. They butcher the same shots over and over and over. Put them in a bunker, and they're fine, but ask them to hit a simple pitch shot from 25 yards where they have to fly any type of hazard (deep rough, a bunker, etc.) and they absolutely melt down.

 

These people are absolutely better off being 80 to 120 than being 45 to certain holes in certain conditions. And they know what those holes are, they are just too stubborn/stupid to lay up and play a full wedge.

 

The answer, of course, is to get over the pitching yips, but many people never do -- and for those people, it's better to have a 3/4 or full shot than a pitch. And yes, I know that people don't lay-up perfectly. But it's pretty easy for a 5-capper who's a decent striker of the ball to lay up to a 40 yard range (80ish to 120ish) rather than take 3-wood to "get as close as he can" on a par 5 to an elevated green with a fronting bunker where they've made double or triple from 40 yards short half the time because they skull or chunk their initial shot 75% of the time.

 

These are real golfers and Strokes Gained/Fawcett wants to pretend they don't exist because ... I'm not sure why ... but it probably has something to do with how they'd have to acknowledge these people and their severe weaknesses -- something that people who are selling something don't like to do because it makes marketing more difficult.

 

I could be wrong about my hypothesis about those with significant pitching issues -- but I don't think so. I'd love to see some hard data on certain buddies with whom I've played hundreds of rounds and find out if, on certain hole types, he scores better from 30 to 50 yards than he does from 80 to 120. I would be shocked if he did, but I would love to see the data.

 

Here's how bad one guy is/was: from 30 to 50 yards away in the fairway, he finally took to putting the ball on certain holes -- and I'm not talking in Scotland, I'm talking right here in California. Putting through 30 to 40 yards of Bermuda fairway -- something literally no one does unless they are desperate and know that they can't hit a 40-yard shot to an elevated green to save their mother's life. This guy was a former 1 to +1 whose driving was/is elite for his age and whose full wedge game is superb. He just has ... ahem ... "holes" in his game.

 

I do love SG, as I think it's been quite illuminating for golf and golfers. I just wish we had and understood more individual golfer data.

 

 

YES! YES! YES!

 

My soul brother.  I had this very discussion with a pal the other day.  The consistently worst area of the overwhelming majority of ams game is pitching and chipping inside 75 yds.  And I am not talking hacks, I am talking guys that can shoot high 70s to mid-80s.

 

I play with two guys, solid players, who literally can't use a gap or sand wedge around the green.  Watching somebody use a 7 iron to pitch and run through the rough to a short-sided pin is excruciating. 

 

As Obee said, I too have a couple of guys who said "eff it" and putt everything, including out of the rough.  I have seen it all.  

[Fairway14]

19 minutes ago, The Pearl said:

This is hilarious.

 

I play with a rotation of about 8 or 9 different guys.  Not a single one of them have heard of Broadie, let alone read his book.  

 

Is even one led down the wrong path not too many ?

2 hours ago, Obee said:

. But it's pretty easy for a 5-capper who's a decent striker of the ball to lay up to a 40 yard range (80ish to 120ish) rather than take 3-wood to "get as close as he can" on a par 5 to an elevated green with a fronting bunker where they've made double or triple from 40 yards short half the time because they skull or chunk their initial shot 75% of the time.

 

These are real golfers and Strokes Gained/Fawcett wants to pretend they don't exist because ... I'm not sure why ...

 

 

The reason why is that neither Broadie or Fawcett has true comprehension of the game and its nuances. They're faking it but the customer doesn't  know any better so what they're selling gets bought.

[pinhigh27]

9 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Is even one led down the wrong path not too many ?

 

The reason why is that neither Broadie or Fawcett has true comprehension of the game and its nuances. They're faking it but the customer doesn't  know any better so what they're selling gets bought.

Ya but you do, lol give me a break 

[smashdn]

13 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

The reason why is that neither Broadie or Fawcett has true comprehension of the game and its nuances. They're faking it but the customer doesn't  know any better so what they're selling gets bought.

 

Or it is statistical in nature and not everybody understands application of statistics, bell curves, normal distribution and standard deviation.

 

But when you do...

[glk]

2 hours ago, MtlJayMan said:

Very interesting post – and @Krt22 sums it up best (that post is golden)… and I can attest to the decent player (7.1 cap as of now; been playing for a year) that has difficulties with half shots… so I can illustrate with my game, it is obviously anecdotal but we can draw interesting conclusions nonetheless in my opinion…

 

I’ve got a master’s degree in statistics – so everything in my rounds is logged haha… total driving distance is 260yds / 9.7 GIR (71% from 50yds in, 59% from 125yds in) / u&d 24%... So, as you can probably deduce: decent ball striking (nothing exceptional for sure) but atrocious close range save numbers compared to scratch players…

 

Suppose I get to a 520yds par5 hole without anything badly penal (usual fairway bunkers, rough, trees offering a relatively large corridor)… having looked at SG and DECADE, my intentions are always: driver (260) / 3w (230) leaving me 30-40-50 yds in and never, let’s play it to 230+180 leaving me 110 yds in…

 

I usually don’t get that 3rd short shot close enough – 16ft on average… and lose that birdie opportunity to par… knowing very well that if I can practice and up my game from that close range; it’ll eventually shove strokes and lower that index… rather than trying for the ‘safe route' (3w cone dispersion being the same as driver but obviously smaller dispersion due to distance) of having a full 110 shot in which, right now, might get me nearly as close to that half shot… but would be detrimental in the long run if I can improve my short game… my 2 cents

16 feet average from 30-50 yards is damn good - tour best from 30+ is 9 feet and average is 12' 7" with worst being 14-18'

tour doesn't say what the range is on 30+ but in approaches has 50-75 yards as shortest approach - so assume this means 30-50 yards.

[PracticeSwinger]

30 minutes ago, glk said:

16 feet average from 30-50 yards is damn good - tour best from 30+ is 9 feet and average is 12' 7" with worst being 14-18'

tour doesn't say what the range is on 30+ but in approaches has 50-75 yards as shortest approach - so assume this means 30-50 yards.

One caveat - that 16ft average is from my 'under 50yds' bucket (which is a mix of 3rd shots on Par5s and the up part of u&d on missed GIR); and would include closer shots (under 30) that are excluded in those Tour figures... so it's a definite area of improvment of mine... I'll try and dissect; 'greenside' and '30-50'

 

Breakdown:

Fringe putting : 6.6ft

Greenside chipping : 13.4ft

Greenside bunker : 18.4ft

30-50 yds : 21.2ft

Edited July 21, 2021 by MtlJayMan

[Krt22]

11 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

Ya but you do, lol give me a break 

Save your breath man, he is an obvious troll. Anyone who thinks "nuances" have anything to do with statistically significant data sets don't really have a grasp on anything at all when it comes to the subject of SG or golf in general and thus should be completely ignored. 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Krt22

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, The Pearl said:

Tom Wishon has talked endlessly about this.  Shorter drivers, properly weighted with the proper shaft and with the correct loft.

 

Most who struggle would drastically improve with a basic fitting.

 

 

I just choke down on the grip on driver when it needs to be in the fairway at all costs.  Goes about half as high and 30-40 yards shorter carry but depending upon fairway conditions doesn't give up much total yardage.

[DaveLeeNC]

On 7/20/2021 at 5:14 PM, Nard_S said:

It's not my take and SG is a useful tool but how come the best have dropped only 1/10 of a stroke over 72 holes with this new paradigm ? It is a fair question.

 

Saying "better a #9i in than a #4i" is silly. We need analytics for that? We need "data", lol.

 

But that is not the question. Most often the question is along the lines of 4i from the fairway 75% of the time (rough 25% of the time) vs. 9i from the fairway 40% of the time (60% from the rough) does require analytics. 

 

dave

[dlygrisse]

On 7/3/2021 at 6:19 PM, RickK said:

BINGO!!!

Plus greens with crazy undulations and forced carries on par 4’s. Jack was never a fan of running it up, high towering middle and long irons were how he visualized things. 

[Krt22]

2 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

But that is not the question. Most often the question is along the lines of 4i from the fairway 75% of the time (rough 25% of the time) vs. 9i from the fairway 40% of the time (60% from the rough) does require analytics. 

 

dave

We have the analytics. 

 

150 would be a flighted 9 for most pros that will stop relatively quickly

220 a smooth 4 that rolls out 20+ ft.

 

PGA tour avg from 150 yards to hole out from the fairway is 2.95.  From 220 yards it's 3.32. The rough typically adds .25 (on average) to the score. So even if you were in the rough 100% of the time from 150 and in the fairway 100% from 220, you would still score better from 150. Realistically the split would probably be 50% in the rough from 150 and 75% in the fairway from 220. On avg the "smart" guy laying up to get in the fairway would avg 3.38 to hole out and the dummy bomber would avg 3.075. Over the course of a 4 round tournament that would be at least 1 full shot delta.

 

But these analytics are useless, we all know your avg club golfer who can't hit driver straight is way better with his long clubs than most PGA tour pros.

 

 

[Nard_S]

52 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

But that is not the question. Most often the question is along the lines of 4i from the fairway 75% of the time (rough 25% of the time) vs. 9i from the fairway 40% of the time (60% from the rough) does require analytics. 

 

dave

No it's really not because that's a literally a 5 club variance which is 60 yards for most. Not real world on any level.

 

Edit: Btw if you're laying back 60 yards you're an idiot, so take up Zumba.

Edited July 22, 2021 by Nard_S

[Nard_S]

If you need stats to decide between a PW from the fairway or a SW from the rough, maybe golf is not your game. Just saying.

[DaveLeeNC]

12 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

No it's really not because that's a literally a 5 club variance which is 60 yards for most. Not real world on any level.

 

The 4i vs 9i for a layup was your example - not mine. And it certainly is not real world. 

 

So how do you propose that someone decide at what point the accuracy vs. distance trade-off favors one vs the other. You seem to think that data is not needed, so how does one do this?

 

dave

 

ps. I have no idea what your 'PW vs SW' question has to do with this.

[betarhoalphadelta]

24 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

No it's really not because that's a literally a 5 club variance which is 60 yards for most. Not real world on any level.

 

Edit: Btw if you're laying back 60 yards you're an idiot, so take up Zumba.

 

Well, this whole thing started with someone saying that distance was not highly significant to scoring, and saying that as long as you can drive it 230 that's plenty to score even par on a 6800 yard course. 

 

Someone who hits it 270 vs someone who hits it 230 will only have a 40 yard advantage in approach shot distance, but I'd think they'd easily have a 5-club variance in approach shot club selection. Because they have 40 yards of actual distance plus the fact that the longer driver also hits his irons longer than the shorter driver, by probably a 2-3 club gap. 

 

So with the context that we're talking about two different players, a longer hitter vs a shorter hitter, 9i vs 4i for their approach shot is absolutely realistic.