golf's three most overrated currently common beliefs ?

[Petethreeput]

I just want to say I love this thread.  We have two sides of the argument. 

 

Distance doesn't matter, and it is supported by "that one guy" who scores better than I do on a course, yet he is shorter than me off the tee... but when he was on the PGA tour he was in the 90% percentile in driving distance.  Disregarding the fact, an ex-Tour player could play with a piece of rebar and beat most of us.

 

Then on the other side you have folks who do believe distance matters off the tee and it is supported not just by Broadie, but also Dave Pelz, who notes the correlation of distance to proximity on approach shots in his short game bible.  This belief is also supported by the pros themselves as they all chase distance and have since they were kids.  Tiger dominated because of length, Jack dominated because of length, and the next guy will dominate because of length (understanding they won't win every week) only bolstering the naysayers claims.

 

Carry on, and hopefully, some of the posters here don't fall off the edge of the earth in their quest to find the other guy who can hit it 230 and shoot 68 consistently on a 6800 yard course.

[nsxguy]

28 minutes ago, b.mattay said:

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.

 

Just to be clear, the OP, whether intentional or not, made this a "negative" thread (to fool us ?)

 

The title is "golf's three most overrated currently common beliefs" and the last "instruction" in his OP, if you could get through the whole thing, was "Please post to this thread thread three common beliefs about golf that you find to be overrated and, or, false"

 

Somehow I don't think you meant your 3 items were "overrated". 🙃

[trilerian]

What ever happened to the 5i * 36 rule to figure out how long of a course you should play? I'm just not seeing how someone who hits it 230 off the tee is going to be good from 6800 yards.  Sure, there will be exceptions, but most golfers who hit it 230 with driver are hitting a 5i, what, 165?  6000 yards seems a much better distance for those golfers.  I have a driver swing speed just north of 100 mph and I struggle on courses longer than 6500 yards.  

[b.mattay]

57 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Just to be clear, the OP, whether intentional or not, made this a "negative" thread (to fool us ?)

 

The title is "golf's three most overrated currently common beliefs" and the last "instruction" in his OP, if you could get through the whole thing, was "Please post to this thread thread three common beliefs about golf that you find to be overrated and, or, false"

 

Somehow I don't think you meant your 3 items were "overrated". 🙃

Total coincidence on the three items, was just responding to the "trending" direction of the thread 😂. 
 

That being said, the most overrated things in golf to me are: 

1.) Hitting a draw for distance 

2.) Hitting up on driver for distance

3.) Opening the stance greenside, especially in bunkers

Edited July 8, 2021 by b.mattay

[Fairway14]

49 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Just to be clear, the OP, whether intentional or not, made this a "negative" thread (to fool us ?)

 

The title is "golf's three most overrated currently common beliefs"

 

Remember that 90% of golfers are hackers, meaning that 90% of players average shooting 90 or worse. So, it is fitting that most common beliefs about golf come from players who shoot 90 and, or, don't have  true understanding of the facets of the game. Companies and people selling goods and services within the golf industry target the hacker market. Rhetoric such as "more distance" , "getting fit for clubs really makes a difference" ", or "bigger is better" is what the hackers want to hear, so that is the message that is sold to them , and same naturally becomes an overrated currently common belief.

[Warrior42111]

Damn Bogey golfers are now hackers....might have to cry myself to sleep tonight or in WRX fashion buy a shiny club to make me feel better 😎

[Fairway14]

25 minutes ago, trilerian said:

What ever happened to the 5i * 36 rule to figure out how long of a course you should play? I'm just not seeing how someone who hits it 230 off the tee is going to be good from 6800 yards.  Sure, there will be exceptions, but most golfers who hit it 230 with driver are hitting a 5i, what, 165?  6000 yards seems a much better distance for those golfers.  I have a driver swing speed just north of 100 mph and I struggle on courses longer than 6500 yards.  

 

What's wrong with swinging a 5-iron from 165 yards ? I caddie each year at a tournament for a guy who usually swings 4-hybrid from 165. He is 81 years old and shoots in the high 60's 5 or 6 times per year. His home course where he carries a 2.3 index is 6,400 yards. Most weeks in skins games he takes money from guys who swing 8-iron from 165 yards and outdrive him by 80 yards (or more). Some LPGA players are swinging hybrid clubs from 165 yards and shooting under par golf. 

[trilerian]

8 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

What's wrong with swinging a 5-iron from 165 yards ? I caddie each year at a tournament for a guy who usually swings 4-hybrid from 165. He is 81 years old and shoots in the high 60's 5 or 6 times per year. His home course where he carries a 2.3 index is 6,400 yards. Most weeks in skins games he takes money from guys who swing 8-iron from 165 yards and outdrive him by 80 yards (or more). Some LPGA players are swinging hybrid clubs from 165 yards and shooting under par golf. 

 

I have to wonder if you are purposefully being argumentative...  You keep citing exceptional ball strikers to try to prove your theory.  But evidence based research across handicap ranges shows different results.  If I were someone who likes a full representation of a situation, and I am, I'll go with the strokes gained theory over some cherry picked range of exceptional ball strikers theory.  

 

[Krt22]

4 hours ago, LeftDaddy said:

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

You forgot the 20HCP that hits it 225 will get to shooting mid 70s on 6500+ yard courses faster by practicing short game non-stop than he will by improving his swing and adding distance.  

[LeftDaddy]

We are totally getting trolled at this point and I’m as guilty as the rest of you in staying with this. Just for funsies, though, I’m creating Mark Broadie’s 3 most overrated commonly held views of golf:

 

1. Hitting your irons close isn’t that imperative to scoring, thus you don’t need to spend much time working on that part of your game (especially if it takes away from your putting and short game practice)

2. Training to make more putts is a high leverage way to reduce your handicap significantly, especially those 10 footers that the pros always make but that the ams miss 60% of the time 

3.  Off the tee, focusing on hitting every fairway is also a big contributor to better scoring. If this means you need to lay back even by hitting an iron then so be it. But you’d better hit the fairway at all costs, because we all know how much more accurate you can be with a tight lie and the ability to spin the ball. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by LeftDaddy

[Krt22]

2 hours ago, b.mattay said:

Total coincidence on the three items, was just responding to the "trending" direction of the thread 😂. 
 

That being said, the most overrated things in golf to me are: 

1.) Hitting a draw for distance 

2.) Hitting up on driver for distance

3.) Opening the stance greenside, especially in bunkers

Now we are getting somewhere! Here are some of mine

 

1) Short game will improve your scores faster than long game

2) 225 in the fairway is better than 275 in the rough

3) If you are long, you are inherently inaccurate 

[Fairway14]

1 hour ago, trilerian said:

 

I have to wonder if you are purposefully being argumentative...  You keep citing exceptional ball strikers to try to prove your theory.  But evidence based research across handicap ranges shows different results.  If I were someone who likes a full representation of a situation, and I am, I'll go with the strokes gained theory over some cherry picked range of exceptional ball strikers theory.  

 

 

I don't understand your point. Yes, I've provided examples of amateur and pro players, male and female, who shoot low scores while hitting relatively short tee balls and, or, use relatively long clubs to reach lots of greens.

The "evidence based research" you cite is the SG stuff derived from Tour play statistics, right ?

So, we have amateur play that can be seen on the golf courses  versus Tour play statistics. It seems to me that is the "full representation of a situation" that you like.

[Krt22]

10 minutes ago, LeftDaddy said:

We are totally getting trolled at this point and I’m as guilty as the rest of you in staying with this. Just for funsies, though, I’m creating Mark Broadie’s 3 most overrated commonly held views of golf:

 

1. Hitting your irons close isn’t that imperative to scoring, thus you don’t need to spend much time working on that part of your game (especially if it takes away from your putting and short game practice)

2. Training to make more putts is a high leverage way to reduce your handicap significantly, especially those 10 footers that the pros always make but that the ams miss 60% of the time 

3.  Off the tee, focusing on hitting every fairway is also a big contributor to better scoring. If this means you need to lay back even by hitting an iron then so be it. But you’d better hit the fairway at all costs, because we all know how much more accurate you can be with a tight lie and the ability to spin the ball. 

Let's add a few more

 

1) An 8ft uphill putt is way easier than a 4ft down hill putt, so never get it past the hole on a chip

2) Long is always dead, so better to club down and short side yourself on the approach to a front pin

3) Only pros and elite ams are good at partial wedge shots, so it's best to lay back to a full wedge distance, even though pros on avg are still 20ft from the hole with a full wedge, but a 15 handicap is going to do way better than that

[Krt22]

4 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

The "evidence based research" you cite is the SG stuff derived from Tour play statistics, right ?

So, we have amateur play that can be seen on the golf courses  versus Tour play statistics. It seems to me that is the "full representation of a situation" that you like.

No, it was not. The original book and methodology was derived from data collected from club golfers of different skill levels (200,000+ total shots IIRC). It became really popular and fanned out once the tour started using the shot-link system, but there are tons of data sets that they access to get SG data for golfers of various skill levels. The Decade system has benchmarks for PGA tour players, LGPA players, and D1 players as well. PGA tour data is easiest to access because of the shot-link system, but no, that was absolutely not the only basis for the system. And even if it was, it's absurd to think statistical trends of the most skilled golfers in the world somehow don't apply to less skilled golfers, as if amateurs have less variability in their shot distributions 

[Fairway14]

37 minutes ago, LeftDaddy said:

We are totally getting trolled at this point and I’m as guilty as the rest of you in staying with this. Just for funsies, though, I’m creating Mark Broadie’s 3 most overrated commonly held views of golf:

 

1. Hitting your irons close isn’t that imperative to scoring, thus you don’t need to spend much time working on that part of your game 

2. Training to make more putts is a high leverage way to reduce your handicap significantly, especially those 10 footers that the pros always make but that the ams miss 60% of the time 

3.  Off the tee, focusing on hitting every fairway is also a big contributor to better scoring. If this means you need to lay back even by hitting an iron then so be it. But you’d better hit the fairway at all costs, because we all know how much more accurate you can be with a tight lie and the ability to spin the ball. 

 

 

The irony of your post is that if 100 Tour players were to read your list I expect 75 of them would agree that your 3 points would make good sense for amateur play scoring  improvement. For example books written by Tour players and PGA teaching pros commonly recommend that amateurs trying to break 100 target the middle of the greens, spend time on the practice putting green, and from the tee boxes play whichever club they can consistently hit the fairway (for some beginners that may be a 7-iron, for a bit more advanced players that may be a 5-iron or hybrid or 5-wood, for others that may be a 3-wood etc... They are making suggestions for amateurs trying to break 100 or 90,  for someone who shoots 72.

In contrast, Broadie's SG stats and findings were compiled from play at Tour events. I can imagine some Tour pros may learn something useful from SG numbers but an am trying to break 100 or 90 or 80, not so much.

[klebs01]

21 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

 

The irony of your post is that if 100 Tour players were to read your list I expect 75 of them would agree that your 3 points would make good sense for amateur play scoring  improvement. For example books written by Tour players and PGA teaching pros commonly recommend that amateurs trying to break 100 target the middle of the greens, spend time on the practice putting green, and from the tee boxes play whichever club they can consistently hit the fairway (for some beginners that may be a 7-iron, for a bit more advanced players that may be a 5-iron or hybrid or 5-wood, for others that may be a 3-wood etc... They are making suggestions for amateurs trying to break 100 or 90,  for someone who shoots 72.

In contrast, Broadie's SG stats and findings were compiled from play at Tour events. I can imagine some Tour pros may learn something useful from SG numbers but an am trying to break 100 or 90 or 80, not so much.

Absolutely getting trolled. You won’t even admit you are wrong about Brodie’s data set. 

[trilerian]

1. Being a wizard with a wedge and a putter can make up for bad ball striking

2. Fast greens are better

3. Open the face in the bunker

 

I'll add something that I think is underrated.  Being able to work the ball both ways, generally ball striking in all its glory.  I know days where I go low for me are days where my ball striking shines.  

[Fairway14]

48 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

No, it was not. The original book and methodology was derived from data collected from club golfers of different skill levels (200,000+ total shots IIRC). It became really popular and fanned out once the tour started using the shot-link system, but there are tons of data sets that they access to get SG data for golfers of various skill levels. The Decade system has benchmarks for PGA tour players, LGPA players, and D1 players as well. PGA tour data is easiest to access because of the shot-link system, but no, that was absolutely not the only basis for the system. And even if it was, it's absurd to think statistical trends of the most skilled golfers in the world somehow don't apply to less skilled golfers, as if amateurs have less variability in their shot distributions 

 

Someone is out there compiling the shots of amateur players trying to break 100, 90, or 80  at the municipal courses and private clubs around the country ? I've never seen any person or company or organization in the business of doing that.

[Fairway14]

3 minutes ago, trilerian said:

1. Being a wizard with a wedge and a putter can make up for bad ball striking

2. Fast greens are better

3. Open the face in the bunker

 

 

To your points:

 

1) have you never played with someone who just sort of scraped it straight from tee to green but consistently left his ball on or next to the greens and routinely got it up and down for par to shoot 72? Or watched on t.v. a Tour player hit 8 greens en route to shooting 69 ?

2) Fast greens are usually smooth greens, and most players make more putts on smooth greens than they do bumpy greens

3) How can a player hit a bunker shot with high trajectory and soft landing without opening the face of the sand wedge ?

[LeftDaddy]

8 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

Absolutely getting trolled. You won’t even admit you are wrong about Brodie’s data set. 

They started with “distance is overrated”. They’ve since qualified it 100 times to where it’s really just “trying to swing out of your shoes to get an extra 20 yards is bad if you can’t control where it’s going” which literally every one of us would agree with. And “middle of the greens” is thrown in there as an argument to their side, which again almost no one would disagree with. So we would be completely done with this conversation if we stopped there. 
 

But no…they can’t admit they were wrong, so they obfuscate the points by bringing up ridiculous stuff like the one guy we’ve all played with who’s short but dead down the middle all the time as evidence that distance somehow doesn’t matter. 
 

Im just having a blast with this now, not being able to wait for the next random piece of anecdotal evidence that tries to cling on to the original assertion that distance doesn’t matter (despite mountains of evidence to the contrary). 

[Fairway14]

11 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

Absolutely getting trolled. You won’t even admit you are wrong about Brodie’s data set. 

 

You don't have to believe me, just ask the teaching pro at your home course. He/she will agree that the middle of the greens is a good sense target, putting practice is always a good idea, and that hitting lots of fairways from the tee boxes are all helpful strategies for amateurs trying to break 100, 90 or 80.

[LeftDaddy]

15 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Someone is out there compiling the shots of amateur players trying to break 100, 90, or 80  at the municipal courses and private clubs around the country ? I've never seen any person or company or organization in the business of doing that.

Broadie and his team of researchers did just that before Shot Link became available, and so did Dave Pelz. 
 

And here’s a hint for you guys…distance and proximity to the hole of approach shots etc matters even more for ams because of the significant skill gaps between us and pros in those areas. 
 

And don’t try to tell me what Broadie says or doesn’t say. One of his original research team members was my graduate thesis advisor. I saw presentations on the material before it ever became a book, and I also have a copy of the original research paper that was submitted to the USGA. It is way more complex than what is in the book, but the book distills a lot of the complexity into useful advice. And again, they first had a team of grad students collecting data from AMATEUR and pro golfers to start their analysis. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by LeftDaddy

[klebs01]

1 minute ago, Fairway14 said:

 

You don't have to believe me, just ask the teaching pro at your home course. He/she will agree that the middle of the greens is a good sense target, putting practice is always a good idea, and that hitting lots of fairways from the tee boxes are all helpful strategies for amateurs trying to break 100, 90 or 80.

Not a single word you just typed has anything to do with my post you quoted. 
 

Nothing you just typed supports your assertion that distance isn’t important. I am certain my pro would support the data driven conclusions in Brodie’s book and playing strategies similar to those proposed in the Decade system that are derived from stokes gained insights. 

[Fairway14]

1 minute ago, LeftDaddy said:

Broadie and his team of researchers did just that before Shot Link became available, and so did Dave Pelz. 
 

And here’s a hint for you guys…distance and proximity to the hole of approach shots etc matters even more for ams because of the significant skill gaps between us and pros in those areas. 

 

Brroadie and, or, Pelz hired people to be at the munis and private clubs charting-measuring-recording the shots of players shooting 105,  95, 85, 75 etc...? I never heard or read anything about this happening. Is there a story somewhere about these guys being out there following amateurs around the courses ?

[Warrior42111]

5 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

You don't have to believe me, just ask the teaching pro at your home course. He/she will agree that the middle of the greens is a good sense target, putting practice is always a good idea, and that hitting lots of fairways from the tee boxes are all helpful strategies for amateurs trying to break 100, 90 or 80.

To quote my teaching pro who I just texted

 

" For off the tee there are a few factors but you want to put it as close to the green as possible as long as you're keeping in play  away from hazards and OB and will not be blocked out by anything. I get the idea of wanting to be in the fairway, but a 200 yard shot from the fairway will have a great dispersion that a 150 yard shot from the rough. The is especially true for amateurs who aren't consistant ball strikers," 

 

Also to your point about normal golfer data, pretty sure Acroos or whatever they are called has mounds of data on this. I don't know about off the tee but I do remember and article on par 5 second shots and the conclusion was barring hazards it's way better to put the shot as close to the green as possible rather than laying up the say 100 yards for a full swing. 

[LeftDaddy]

8 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Brroadie and, or, Pelz hired people to be at the munis and private clubs charting-measuring-recording the shots of players shooting 105,  95, 85, 75 etc...? I never heard or read anything about this happening. Is there a story somewhere about these guys being out there following amateurs around the courses ?

They did it themselves. Do you really think that a team of researchers from University of Chicago and MIT would extrapolate tour only data to amateurs and then write a book about it without verifying it in some way?  

[trilerian]

17 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

To your points:

 

1) have you never played with someone who just sort of scraped it straight from tee to green but consistently left his ball on or next to the greens and routinely got it up and down for par to shoot 72? Or watched on t.v. a Tour player hit 8 greens en route to shooting 69 ?

2) Fast greens are usually smooth greens, and most players make more putts on smooth greens than they do bumpy greens

3) How can a player hit a bunker shot with high trajectory and soft landing without opening the face of the sand wedge ?

 

1.  Again, exception to the rule...  Better ball striking leads to more GIR, leads to more birdie chances, leads to lower scores.  Being a wizard with a wedge is reactive.  Better ball striking is proactive.  Funny though, I figured this would be one you agree with since you seem to hold prodigious ball striking short hitters in such high regard.  

2. I have never met a fast green I have putted well on.  I have putted well on lots of slow greens.

3. Most amateurs would do better out of the bunker if they play a square stance and don't get cute.  Just get it on.  BTW, this isn't my original thought, I used to be the open face guy out of the bunker, but I got tired of taking another bunker shot right after that. 

[Fairway14]

4 minutes ago, Warrior42111 said:

To quote my teaching pro who I just texted

 

" you want to put it as close to the green as possible as long as you're keeping in play  away from hazards and OB and will not be blocked out by anything. 

 

Errant tee balls that don't find hit the fairway often do find hazards, OB, or blocked lines of play. So your teaching pro friend is saying it's o.k to miss the fairway if the ball ends up in a good lie from which to play the next shot. Depending on the layout of the course that perspective/strategy could work o.k.. For sure on any course the middle of the fairway is always a good place to have a ball lay.

[Fairway14]

5 minutes ago, LeftDaddy said:

 Do you really think that a team of researchers from University of Chicago and MIT would extrapolate tour only data to amateurs and then write a book about it without verifying it in some way?  

Yes. People trying to sell something will claim lots of stuff if it helps to make a sale. Salesmen usually tell people what they want to hear.

[PappyVanWinkle53]

On 7/6/2021 at 11:49 PM, nsxguy said:

 

So length IS an advantage then. Thanks.

 

The "other shots" ??? I don't know of any player, amateur or pro, who isn't more accurate and more consistent with a 6 iron than he/she is with a 4, or an 8 over a 6, or a PW over an 8.

 

Can't think of a single player I've ever seen consistently better with a longer club than a shorter one.

 

Nicklaus had power to spare and didn't NEED all the distance all the time. As you yourself have mentioned there can be trouble "long" and safety at a shorter distance. So his playing shorter was simply good course management.

 

If there's anybody that embodied terrific course management skills, it was Nicklaus.

"Can't think of a single player I've ever seen consistently better with a longer club than a shorter one."

 

...except for Roy McAvoy and his 7-iron.  He never misses with a 7-iron.  It's the only truly safe club in his bag.