golf's three most overrated currently common beliefs ?

[Fairway14]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

 

I am assuming, even though I don't recall it actually stated, that the question is really "all else being equal, is length an advantage ?"

 

 

 

The reality is that guys who focus on and, or, use a swing technique aimed at maximum tee box distance typically suffer accuracy problems not only for tee shots,  but also when trying to make effective swings for the other shots needed to shoot a low score. This is why the SG  stats/findings are so misleading, especially when applied to the lesser skill level of amateurs versus  Tour pro games.

Everyone will agree  that a 260 yard straight drive is preferable to a 230 yard straight drive. But (for several reasons previously listed within this thread), consistently achieving a 230 yard straight drive is easier than consistently achieving a 260 yard straight drive. At the Tour level plenty of 285 yard average hitters are capable of producing 310 yard drives, but most choose not to because they know driving accuracy will suffer and that gearing a swing for long drive harms the swing tempo-pace-rhythm needed to play the rest of the shots for shooting a low score.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Fairway14

[Nard_S]

 

29 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

I am assuming, even though I don't recall it actually stated, that the question is really "all else being equal, is length an advantage ?"

 

Exactly when is it "all else being equal"? I would say to that, it's when you're a scratch and poke 260. Adding 25 matter. That's maybe 3% of golfers.  My point was, and still is, it's not equal nor will it ever be if the prism is nothing but "data" that's largely driven by the few and accomplished. Telling  a 225 bunter to get to 275 so he can break 90 is stupidity at it's highest level. The bunter can learn a lot more from an outlier (that old man) than from the high priests of the excel spreadsheet, he can get his index much lower , have more fun and enjoy the game more. But no, we have to adhere to the data. "Drive it 280 for fun." "Do speed training, bomb it, skip the putting green, just use the bounce"...... Horse manure." Know what? I do drive it 280, and my hero is that old man. When I here "let the data or science speak", my eyes roll to the back of my head, because it's the most insincere thing ever put forth. Nuance & context is negated so lies , damn lies and statistics rule the day.

[Fairway14]

6 hours ago, EDT501 said:

Since I've gotten $0.02 out on the sidebar of the thread, I'll respond to the original prompt. I hear these a lot from golfers of all ages on both private and public courses and disagree with them all.

1. Augusta National is what golf courses should look like.
2. Loosening dress codes is a slippery slope to acquiescing all sorts of boorish behavior.
3. Golf doesn't have a gender or race problem.

 

Like you I disagree with your numbers 1 and 3. But number 2 I agree with because  I believe it's fine, sometimes a very good thing, to have dress codes for certain environments such as golf courses,  particular schools , expensive restaurants etc...

[ChipStrokes]

38 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Know what? I do drive it 280, and my hero is that old man.

 

hey man, we get it, your dad is a hell of a golfer from 5900 yards. 

 

he can beat all of our dads up, too. 

[Fairway14]

7 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

 

hey man, we get it, your dad is a hell of a golfer from 5900 yards. 

 

he can beat all of our dads up, too. 

 

There seems to be too much assumption in this thread that shorter distance driving should be limited to senior players. Not that long ago John Mahaffey, Mike Reid, Calvin Peete and others competed very well on 7,000 yard PGA Tour courses while driving the ball in the 235 to 245 distance range. Some great players, male and female, young and older, have learned they get their most consistent accurate shot results making relatively easy paced tempo swings that do not produce prodigious shot distances.

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, Nard_S said:

 

 

Exactly when is it "all else being equal"? I would say to that, it's when you're a scratch and poke 260. Adding 25 matter. That's maybe 3% of golfers.  My point was, and still is, it's not equal nor will it ever be if the prism is nothing but "data" that's largely driven by the few and accomplished. Telling  a 225 bunter to get to 275 so he can break 90 is stupidity at it's highest level. The bunter can learn a lot more from an outlier (that old man) than from the high priests of the excel spreadsheet, he can get his index much lower , have more fun and enjoy the game more. But no, we have to adhere to the data. "Drive it 280 for fun." "Do speed training, bomb it, skip the putting green, just use the bounce"...... Horse manure." Know what? I do drive it 280, and my hero is that old man. When I here "let the data or science speak", my eyes roll to the back of my head, because it's the most insincere thing ever put forth. Nuance & context is negated so lies , damn lies and statistics rule the day.

How many people have dramatically improved listening to that old guy? How many strokes per anecdote do they drop? 

 

A friend/regular playing partner rejoined the game after a 20 year absence while he raised his kids, he was a 18-20 handicap, barely broke 90, and was right in that 225 range off the tee.  In the last 2 years he has been grinding, took lessons, improved his swing, and is now legitimately carrying the ball 250-260+. He is now a single digit golfer and just shot a 76 from our normal 6700 yard set of tees. I'm fairly certain he doesn't have an old guy oracle in his ear. Most people who don't hit the ball far have big swing flaws, period. If you want dramatic improvement,  you really need to put your head down and address them. You will gain both length and consistency, which directly leads to lower scores. Most bad golfers who don't improve get stuck because they are too stubborn or too easily influenced by these non-sensical notions that they can be really good if they just did this, or just did that, instead of working hard. 

 

Golf is not a game of perfect and it is also not some mythical thing that can only be learned from golfers of yore. This notion that there is some missing ether that prevents a bad golfer from being a good golfer is absurd.  It's legitimately a game of statistics and probability, reducing the variance as much as you can as a golfer (ie improving your swing), while hitting the high percentage shot (ie effective course management), will directly increase the probability of getting the ball in the hole with the fewest strokes possible. 

 

Nuance and context become less and less relevant when the data set is significantly large.  At every level of the game, the closer you are to the hole (for the same lie/condition), the fewer strokes it take to hole out. You literally cannot refute that data fact. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Krt22

[Fairway14]

10 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

  At every level of the game, the closer you are to the hole (for the same lie/condition), the fewer strokes it take to hole out. You literally cannot refute that data fact. 

 

Nobody here (or anywhere) disputes your above statement. The disagreement seems to be about the effects to swing technique when trying for maximum distance. Some people believe swinging with a hard pace-tempo does not compromise shot accuracy, others believe it does.

[LeftDaddy]

Adding a few more over-rated, but (apparently) commonly held beliefs in golf (keeping to the original point of this ridiculous thread). I’m just playing back what I’ve read so far, so that maybe some of you guys will realize just how ridiculous you sound:

 

- The only way to gain more distance in golf is to swing out of your shoes on every swing and spray your tee shots all over the course

- Only the short hitters keep a few yards in reserve on their shots. All long hitters swing out of their shoes on every single shot (see above). And only the short hitters are good at course management. 

- Distance doesn’t matter in golf. Well, actually, it only matters to a pro or an elite am. And it also only matters if 260 is as straight as 230. And of course being closer to the hole is better than being further away, but only for pros.

- All the best players at your home course are short hitters that average 230 off the tee. If you have long hitters at your club, they don’t stand a chance against these 230 yard hitters because they spray the ball everywhere and aren’t good at course management and playing smart golf. 
- Gains from distance (and just stats in general) only apply to the 3% of golfers that are pros or elite amateurs. Past that point all of the statistical correlations begin to break, to where only short game / putting and hitting the ball dead straight matter.

- Only people who average less than 230 yards off the tee can keep the ball on the planet. Everyone else is just hitting and hoping (except again pros and elite ams who can somehow manage to keep it on the planet)

- Mark Broadie couldn’t possibly draw any conclusions about golf from stats because he’s a hack (side note: Broadie didn’t invent Strokes Gained by himself…he and a team of researchers invented it, one of whom was my graduate thesis advisor.  These guys are complete morons who think data for pros can be meaningful in any way for ams).

Edited July 8, 2021 by LeftDaddy

[Mcgeeno]

Distance isnt an advantage "in theory"

 

Its an advantage period. At all levels of golf. Amateur or pro. Junior or senior. Male or female.

 

You get to name a few exceptions to the rule and the rest of the people in this thread can make long lists of players proving the opposite.

 

It is what it is.

 

 

[nsxguy]

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

1) distance is highly significant to scoring

 

1 hour ago, Krt22 said:

At every level of the game, the closer you are to the hole (for the same lie/condition), the fewer strokes it take to hole out. You literally cannot refute that data fact. 

 

1 hour ago, Fairway14 said:

Nobody here (or anywhere) disputes your above statement.

 

Thank goodness. 🙏

 

It only took you 6 days and 5 pages or so to understand you are wrong. 🤦‍♀️

 

/thread

[Mcgeeno]

I want to know where these clubs are where the best players drive the ball 230 yards.

 

You couldnt even reach some of the par threes at my home track.

 

 

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Nard_S said:

 

 

Exactly when is it "all else being equal"? I would say to that, it's when you're a scratch and poke 260. Adding 25 matter. That's maybe 3% of golfers.  My point was, and still is, it's not equal nor will it ever be if the prism is nothing but "data" that's largely driven by the few and accomplished. Telling  a 225 bunter to get to 275 so he can break 90 is stupidity at it's highest level. The bunter can learn a lot more from an outlier (that old man) than from the high priests of the excel spreadsheet, he can get his index much lower , have more fun and enjoy the game more. But no, we have to adhere to the data. "Drive it 280 for fun." "Do speed training, bomb it, skip the putting green, just use the bounce"...... Horse manure." Know what? I do drive it 280, and my hero is that old man. When I here "let the data or science speak", my eyes roll to the back of my head, because it's the most insincere thing ever put forth. Nuance & context is negated so lies , damn lies and statistics rule the day.

 

It is very easy to infer from your statement adding 25 to a higher handicapper matters not at all. And that, after all, is the point. Length matters - for ALL levels.

 

And here we go with apples and oranges again. Yes, trying to get the 225 "bunter" to 275 WOULD be a rare feat indeed. But why try to add 50 to the higher handicapper when you only tried to get 25 more for the scratch player.

 

In point of fact it is probably a lot easier to add more yardage for a higher handicapper as his issues could simply be technique and/or equipment. Or something else. The scratch player should have a tougher time gaining 25. He's already (close to ?) maxed out in ability.

 

And once again, nobody is suggesting that someone's short game doesn't matter. Of course it does but again, that's NOT the point of this particular discussion.

 

The same thing holds true. Length matters in scoring. Additional length (all other things being equal) will lower scores.

[Nard_S]

57 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

How many people have dramatically improved listening to that old guy? How many strokes per anecdote do they drop? 

Guy was chill, Yale grad. Said nothing. Putt count in mid twenties, killer wedge play. Broadie's SG is about proximity and it's always construed as bomb and chilly chunk wedge from  wherever. I rebuilt my short game after playing with that old dude. I work on ball speed and dispersion but reality, there's more swing variations in play than golf clubs carried. SG mentality, at least the internet variety, applies blunt force over that nuance and to my mind it's a loser. There's not that pill, that one thing that closes the deal, SG does not change that. Ask a guy to spend 5 hours a week for 3 months on hitting it longer or just straighter off the tee and sharpening short game, dude doing latter two wins all day.

 

[tatertot]

9 minutes ago, Mcgeeno said:

I want to know where these clubs are where the best players drive the ball 230 yards.

 

You couldnt even reach some of the par threes at my home track.

 

 

You big man ... You play big course ... sorry ... big track ...

 

 

[Nard_S]

5 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

It is very easy to infer from your statement adding 25 to a higher handicapper matters not at all. And that, after all, is the point. Length matters - for ALL levels.

That's not what I'm inferring. I'm not anti- distance. I work at hitting it longer a lot. Weird is pitching & chipping can teach more about true swing efficiency than big dog. So the game is multi-front, multi dimensional. Putting all eggs in distance off the tee is flat out stupid when you can't even get up & down. SG validates that Dumbo mentality, backs it up with "data" so dude can absolve himself of all the other aspects of game. Flat out, only a select few who play have a super solid short game. Yet it's the most attainable talent. Big drives are a dime a dozen, really all are pretty worthless when same guys can't nut a wedge or drain that 7 footer. That's my beef, zero balanced attack validated by the "data", by the stats of inter-web,  by theory du jour, meanwhile manure golf lives on.

[nsxguy]

7 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Putting all eggs in distance off the tee is flat out stupid when you can't even get up & down.

 

35 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

And once again, nobody is suggesting that someone's short game doesn't matter. Of course it does but again, that's NOT the point of this particular discussion.

 

The same thing holds true. Length matters in scoring. Additional length (all other things being equal) will lower scores.

 

[Fairway14]

3 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

That's not what I'm inferring. I'm not anti- distance. I work at hitting it longer a lot. Weird is pitching & chipping can teach more about true swing efficiency than big dog. So the game is multi-front, multi dimensional. Putting all eggs in distance off the tee is flat out stupid when you can't even get up & down. SG validates that Dumbo mentality, backs it up with "data" so dude can absolve himself of all the other aspects of game. Flat out, only a select few who play have a super solid short game. Yet it's the most attainable talent. Big drives are a dime a dozen, really all are pretty worthless when same guys can't nut a wedge or drain that 7 footer. That's my beef, zero balanced attack validated by the "data", by the stats of inter-web,  by theory du jour, meanwhile manure golf lives on.

 

None of this subject matter is new, it's been around for more than 50 years. That is many guys like to try and hit the long ball off the tee , because they find it fun and thrilling to hit their longest drives. So when a mathematician comes along and preaches "closer to the hole results in lower scores no matter what" the amateur distance addicts lap it up like teeny boppers at a Shawn Mendes concert.

Nobody's scores are decreasing due to the strokes gained findings but the devotees don't care because their swing for the fences style of play has been validated by statistics. Meanwhile the old fashioned style players win the amateur competitions and weekend nassau dollars, smiling from the middle of the fairway all day while watching the big hitter in the trees 40 yards ahead trying to figure out how to get his errant tee ball back in play.

[Krt22]

3 hours ago, Nard_S said:

Guy was chill, Yale grad. Said nothing. Putt count in mid twenties, killer wedge play. Broadie's SG is about proximity and it's always construed as bomb and chilly chunk wedge from  wherever. I rebuilt my short game after playing with that old dude. I work on ball speed and dispersion but reality, there's more swing variations in play than golf clubs carried. SG mentality, at least the internet variety, applies blunt force over that nuance and to my mind it's a loser. There's not that pill, that one thing that closes the deal, SG does not change that. Ask a guy to spend 5 hours a week for 3 months on hitting it longer or just straighter off the tee and sharpening short game, dude doing latter two wins all day.

 

lol, way to completely ignore the highly relevant parts to my post and go right back to your non-fact based anecdotes.  At this point it's clear you are a legitimate science/data denier and completely misinterpreting what the SG methodology is (and isn't), because it conflicts with your opinions. Which appear based solely on a small subset of players at your home course, which isn't very long.  You should really venture outside of your home course and play with a wider variety of players. 

[milesgiles]

6 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Nobody here (or anywhere) disputes your above statement. The disagreement seems to be about the effects to swing technique when trying for maximum distance. Some people believe swinging with a hard pace-tempo does not compromise shot accuracy, others believe it does.

 

the best players at my club don't 'try' to swing hard and don't compromise their swing to do so. And I'd never advise anyone to do so.

 

But distance matters. Your first statement in your first post is wrong. That you are now qualifying it with ifs buts and maybe's says it all 

[chippa13]

8 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

None of this subject matter is new, it's been around for more than 50 years. That is many guys like to try and hit the long ball off the tee , because they find it fun and thrilling to hit their longest drives. So when a mathematician comes along and preaches "closer to the hole results in lower scores no matter what" the amateur distance addicts lap it up like teeny boppers at a Shawn Mendes concert.

Nobody's scores are decreasing due to the strokes gained findings but the devotees don't care because their swing for the fences style of play has been validated by statistics. Meanwhile the old fashioned style players win the amateur competitions and weekend nassau dollars, smiling from the middle of the fairway all day while watching the big hitter in the trees 40 yards ahead trying to figure out how to get his errant tee ball back in play.

They may be taking a few bucks in their weekend games but those 230 drivers still aren't regularly shooting 68 on 6,800 yard courses.

[Bad9]

As a shorter hitting 11hc who generally plays with people longer than I am I stayed competitive with my group by being more consistent, essentially less wild through the bag. In my experience there is absolutely no doubt that distance with reasonable control is an advantage. Period. End of story. Unless you play a course on which every wayward tee shot is OB the longer player has the advantage of hitting less club into most greens, can go for par 5's in two(I reasonably cannot unless they are unusually short holes), generally can go over stuff that I have to go around and power makes it easier to potentially recover from bad places. In short I have much less margin for error to shoot a decent score.

[Bad9]

1 minute ago, chippa13 said:

They may be taking a few bucks in their weekend games but those 230 drivers still aren't regularly shooting 68 on 6,800 yard courses.

 

If at all. They likely aren't shooting many 68's on 6400yd courses.

[Warrior42111]

From a technical standpoint a longer hitter could club down which should make them more accurate to that 230 mark and still have a shorter club in again should be more accurate vs a longer club from the same player. As long as the longer player is using length wisely i.e. not trying to bomb drives on tighter holes they should come out on top just based on data. Unless we're looking at a really tough course with trees and OB everywhere an 20 yard wide fairways

 

Also there's a difference between long and OB and long and in the rough. I'd rather have 150 from the rough all day vs 185 from the fairway because I'm more accurate with a shorter club regardless of lie. 

[Bad9]

11 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

There seems to be too much assumption in this thread that shorter distance driving should be limited to senior players. Not that long ago John Mahaffey, Mike Reid, Calvin Peete and others competed very well on 7,000 yard PGA Tour courses while driving the ball in the 235 to 245 distance range. Some great players, male and female, young and older, have learned they get their most consistent accurate shot results making relatively easy paced tempo swings that do not produce prodigious shot distances.

 

Not long ago? Those guys played 20+ years ago. I don't know where to look up the info but did the PGA Tour regularly play 7000yd courses back then? What was the Tour average driving distance at the time?

[Nard_S]

6 hours ago, Krt22 said:

ol, way to completely ignore the highly relevant parts to my post and go right back to your non-fact based anecdotes

You ignore mine. Should i whine to moderators about that?

 

Your friend took two years, that's what it takes. In a quarter of that time an average guy can go next level on short game, knock a fistful of strokes off his index. You can have  of a dual track on this stuff. Most adults simply do not have time for game rebuild of that level. So they "go big" with tee club and ignore the rest and really nothing changes.

 

You keep deriding where I play, your cap would not carry well there. Anytime I play a course where I can use driver 10 times instead of the 5 at mine, I play way above my index. Not impressed with rotunda of 6500-7000 courses or your vast data sets that basically point out it's easier to make a 3 foot putt over a 6. Wow, genius stuff.

[Bad9]

16 minutes ago, Bad9 said:

 

Not long ago? Those guys played 20+ years ago. I don't know where to look up the info but did the PGA Tour regularly play 7000yd courses back then? What was the Tour average driving distance at the time?

 

In 1989 the last year he won (St. Jude Classic) Mahaffey's driving average was 257.9yds. According to an article on PGA.com the tour average for that year was 261.81 and the leaders average was 280.9. It appears Mahaffey last played on the PGA Tour in 2002.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Bad9

[Nard_S]

11 hours ago, Krt22 said:

Most people who don't hit the ball far have big swing flaws, period.

You can have big swing faults and hit the ball far too. Because you attain 260 carry, you don't become immune, in fact you might add a few if all you do is bang big dog because the stats tell you to.

[klebs01]

16 minutes ago, Bad9 said:

 

Not long ago? Those guys played 20+ years ago. I don't know where to look up the info but did the PGA Tour regularly play 7000yd courses back then? What was the Tour average driving distance at the time?

i just pulled the stats for 1980 and 2021. And they are completely in line other than scale. 
 

Mahaffey’s average was 249.5 #146 to the leaders 274.3, 91% of the longest. 
 

Jon Huh is 146 in 2021 with a 291.3 average to the leaders 321.9. 90% of the leader. 
 

if Mahaffey is to be used as an example, then people should be encouraged to hit it about 290 for equivalent performance. 

 

[LeftDaddy]

11 hours ago, LeftDaddy said:

Adding a few more over-rated, but (apparently) commonly held beliefs in golf (keeping to the original point of this ridiculous thread). I’m just playing back what I’ve read so far, so that maybe some of you guys will realize just how ridiculous you sound:

 

- The only way to gain more distance in golf is to swing out of your shoes on every swing and spray your tee shots all over the course

- Only the short hitters keep a few yards in reserve on their shots. All long hitters swing out of their shoes on every single shot (see above). And only the short hitters are good at course management. 

- Distance doesn’t matter in golf. Well, actually, it only matters to a pro or an elite am. And it also only matters if 260 is as straight as 230. And of course being closer to the hole is better than being further away, but only for pros.

- All the best players at your home course are short hitters that average 230 off the tee. If you have long hitters at your club, they don’t stand a chance against these 230 yard hitters because they spray the ball everywhere and aren’t good at course management and playing smart golf. 
- Gains from distance (and just stats in general) only apply to the 3% of golfers that are pros or elite amateurs. Past that point all of the statistical correlations begin to break, to where only short game / putting and hitting the ball dead straight matter.

- Only people who average less than 230 yards off the tee can keep the ball on the planet. Everyone else is just hitting and hoping (except again pros and elite ams who can somehow manage to keep it on the planet)

- Mark Broadie couldn’t possibly draw any conclusions about golf from stats because he’s a hack (side note: Broadie didn’t invent Strokes Gained by himself…he and a team of researchers invented it, one of whom was my graduate thesis advisor.  These guys are complete morons who think data for pros can be meaningful in any way for ams).

Adding a few more based on recent responses:

 

- OK, so now Broadie himself isn’t a moron, but apparently everyone who read his stuff is a moron and thinks that he wrote an entire book on one premise…that distance off the tee is the only key to getting better at golf (and again a side note…if you read Broadie and comprehended it, and if you want to believe that he would harp on just one thing, iron play / SG approach would have been the one main thing that separates the great from the good…SG off the tee would have been second which includes both distance and accuracy)

- Ams can only improve one thing at a time, and can only comprehend one thing from a whole book of suggestions

- An hour spent on chipping/putting will improve your scores way faster than an hour spent on improving your swing/distance

- Longer courses are easier for short hitters because of their superior short games and their deadly accuracy off the tee

- When PGA tour players approach the age of 50 and start losing a few yards, instead of opting for the senior tour, they should encourage the PGA / USGA to lengthen all of the courses to almost 8000 yards. All of those long hitting youngsters will be absolutely frustrated as they miss every fairway while the old guys just bunt the ball down the middle on them all day and wedge them to death

Edited July 8, 2021 by LeftDaddy

[b.mattay]

Couple things: 

 

1.) A balanced game is very important. The best players are good with every club throughout the bag. 
2.) Distance absolutely matters. I've played with exactly one + handicap player who hits it less than 250, and he struggles on tournament courses (firmed out) because at that speed it is hard to generate the height and spin needed to hold firm greens. The other plus handicaps I have played with average 280+, with the majority of those being over 300.

3.) Better swings make you longer and straighter. In most cases there is not a huge tradeoff.

Edited July 8, 2021 by b.mattay