Forgiveness vs. Workability

[Pepperturbo]

13 minutes ago, ChipNRun said:

 

With this as a starting point, a related factor is clubhead speed. My driver CHS is 90 mph on  a good day, kind of on the line. For past 15 years, game-improvement /CBs tend to give me the best performance. This is especially true if the GI irons have higher lofts than the PDs.

As for as working the ball, to what degree to you mean? Golfers who understand the rules of ball flight can hit a basic face or draw with almost any club.

 

If you want to master the Big Nine, in the words of PT, it will take "an awfully lot of practice."

 

And pursuit of forgiveness - ability to launch ball on less than solid hits - can be overdone. The problem I've had in testing out SGI irons is that the longer irons launch fine, but at about 8i they can start ballooning the ball. That's why blended sets often select 7i and below for helpful launch channels in head, and more standard CBs at 8i and above. (Many TM iron models since the Rocketbladez have used this design.)

 

Tactical choices to make: into a slight headwind... hit a 6i knockdown, or a full 5i? (Note: full 5i takes less practice).

👍

It was a long time ago, but basically, for 5+ years each day a basket or 250/300 balls, straight, draw and fade, M-PW-8i, T-7i-5i, W-4-2i, T-Woods, F/S-wedges and play executive 18.  Straight was/is my stock trajectory, baby draw and fade took awhile.  Most challenging of the 9 shapes still is hitting a low fade with PW/9i; I don't even bother, I just hit it straight.   During last week's round, I may be hit 2 high draws and a few fades for fun, rest were straight.  Into headwind, I always hit the ball as straight as I can, how many more clubs depends on wind.  Still getting a handle on the new T100s irons.  Thanks to the heavier Tungsten nuggets in toe and heel, they feel and behave different from my 620 MBs.

[jvincent]

1 hour ago, Ri_Redneck said:

SO right. I forgot about the dreaded double-cross (intentionally most likely)!! I too play a power fade and since getting it pretty well grooved, am swinging for the bleachers most of the time. A DC for me is almost always a stroke (or two!) unless there is another fairway left! 🤪 

 

Good point!

 

BT

 

Fader here as well. Like all faders my big miss is also a double cross. But you know what, it happens so infrequently that all the other balls that are in play, not in the trees more than make up for it.

 

[Ri_Redneck]

1 hour ago, Pepperturbo said:

👍

It was a long time ago, but basically, for 5+ years each day a basket or 250/300 balls, straight, draw and fade, M-PW-8i, T-7i-5i, W-4-2i, T-Woods, F/S-wedges and play executive 18.  Straight was/is my stock trajectory, baby draw and fade took awhile.  Most challenging of the 9 shapes still is hitting a low fade with PW/9i; I don't even bother, I just hit it straight.   During last week's round, I may be hit 2 high draws and a few fades for fun, rest were straight.  Into headwind, I always hit the ball as straight as I can, how many more clubs depends on wind.  Still getting a handle on the new T100s irons.  Thanks to the heavier Tungsten nuggets in toe and heel, they feel and behave different from my 620 MBs.

I'm with PT here. Building that level of shotmaking takes dedication and if one doesn't have the time, they should just stick with what they have. Hitting hundreds of balls a day and short game work takes a good bit of time and most working folks just don't have it. Even at 60, I hit at least 100 balls every day I can and putt on my Birdie Ball mat, just to keep the edge sharp.

 

You're fortunate if your stock shot is pretty straight cause then you only have slight adjustments to get the fade & draw. I would also say my stock vertical trajectory in more medium, which makes the high and low somewhat easier. My Dad was a low ball player and he struggled to hit a high soft shot. He finally gave up and just relied on spin or run-up to put the ball where he wanted. He was down around 4 in his prime and can still do the run-up with amazing consistency. I can curve my wedges about 5 yds and will do it IF there is a real need. But I spin the ball pretty good and can usually just go straight at it with no need for curve. I will work the long irons to pins though cause they always seem to have a little release to them.

 

BT

[DaveGoodrich]

4 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I don't disagree with that at all if you mean working it both ways.    The point I was trying to make (which may not have been clear) is that most am's out there (and even many pros) are much more likely to have a consistent fade or a consistent draw than they are to having a consistent straight shot. 

 

So in this statement you made:

 

IMO, that's a pretty big (and even unrealistic) "if" to have to depend on.

 

Still no disagreement from me.   I'm not saying that hitting a straight ball, for most folks, is easier than hitting your "natural" curve.  But even if that curve is "natural" for you, the amount of curve is going to vary with the loft of the club and the clubhead speed.  So that curvature will vary with the club you hit, and how fast you swing that club.   And variations in the amount of curvature will also impact your vertical dispersion.  So we unconsciously calibrate and estimate all of that as best we can in order to choose our aim point.  But loft and clubhead speed don't affect your horizontal dispersion if our face and path and matched up so we are hitting a straight ball.  Yes, that's a big if.   So I'm not saying its easy to match the face to the path, but I am saying that learning to curve it less should improve your proximity to your target.   

 

4 hours ago, Dan Drake said:

I completely agree that over-curve is the more common error, and that forgiveness will help with that. 

 

But I would like to add a little color to that subject, if I may.  I believe that the double-cross (exaggerated under-curve) is the much more damaging result when discussing over vs. under curvature, even when adjusted for frequency.  

 

If I play a power-fade and my shots all day are a bit more on the wipey-fade side of things, I generally still shoot a pretty good score compared to my best/baseline.  From a strokes gained perspective, maybe each shot that I over-cut is .1 SG worse than my norm and I do that 15 times in a given round.  So I would be losing 1.5 strokes to myself by having that ball flight issue that day.  But if I'm teetering between the power fade and straight ball all day, that means that the face/path is a much smaller window and I'm almost assuredly going to have them overlap a couple of times and hit some double crosses.  And in my experience, double crosses are almost always a 1 stroke, or greater, penalty, meaning it only takes 2, or even just 1, double cross to cost me more than the -1.5 SG that over-curving cost me.  

 

Kinda sums up how we can shoot two completely different looking scores, right?  A 75 could be 3 birdies, 3 bogies, 1 double, and 1 triple, or it could be 1 birdie and 4 bogies.  And both rounds feel completely different during and after.  

 

Another one of the great dichotomies of golf, isn't it?  We want to work towards hitting it straighter (better face/path) while practicing, but on course we are probably better off being a little more divergent face/path.  Sorry for soapbox, don't mean to derail.  

 

 

Are we talking about off the tee, or into a green?  Seems to me that if I am aiming to the center of the green and trying to work the ball to a right pin with a fade, and I overcook the fade, I am short sided.  A double cross in this situation puts me on the green, or off the green with green to work with.  Off the tee, if I'm teetering between a fade and a straight ball (which means I am really teetering between a small fade and a small draw) I adjust my aim point so that small draw doesn't hurt me.   My punitive double crosses happen when I'm playing for the fade, and then mishit it out on the toe, causing a hook.  Or I am playing for the fade, square the face to the path, and hit a straight pull.  Those are execution errors, not strategic errors.  

[Dan Drake]

1 hour ago, DaveGoodrich said:

 

Still no disagreement from me.   I'm not saying that hitting a straight ball, for most folks, is easier than hitting your "natural" curve.  But even if that curve is "natural" for you, the amount of curve is going to vary with the loft of the club and the clubhead speed.  So that curvature will vary with the club you hit, and how fast you swing that club.   And variations in the amount of curvature will also impact your vertical dispersion.  So we unconsciously calibrate and estimate all of that as best we can in order to choose our aim point.  But loft and clubhead speed don't affect your horizontal dispersion if our face and path and matched up so we are hitting a straight ball.  Yes, that's a big if.   So I'm not saying its easy to match the face to the path, but I am saying that learning to curve it less should improve your proximity to your target.   

 

 

 

Are we talking about off the tee, or into a green?  Seems to me that if I am aiming to the center of the green and trying to work the ball to a right pin with a fade, and I overcook the fade, I am short sided.  A double cross in this situation puts me on the green, or off the green with green to work with.  Off the tee, if I'm teetering between a fade and a straight ball (which means I am really teetering between a small fade and a small draw) I adjust my aim point so that small draw doesn't hurt me.   My punitive double crosses happen when I'm playing for the fade, and then mishit it out on the toe, causing a hook.  Or I am playing for the fade, square the face to the path, and hit a straight pull.  Those are execution errors, not strategic errors.  

I'm talking about all full swing golf shots, not only tee or approach.  I agree with your example of approach shot play, playing it that way will leave you short sided a lot.  But that's not how I see, play, or teach the game.  I want one shot shape at all times with only one real exception (a tee shot club that goes the non-dominant direction).  So, I don't believe in working the ball towards pins, at least not in that way.  

 

In "Golf My Way," Jack Nicklaus showed an illustration where he is trying to hit his 10' fade to a right pin.  But he doesn't aim 10' left of the pin so that a perfect shot gets tight.  Hitting an over-cut in that situation would do what you correctly suggest, short siding him.  Instead, he aims 20' left of the pin so that a straight shot leaves him a 20'er, a "perfect" shot leaves him a 10'er, and an over-curve leaves him a tap in!  So while his average putt length does go up a smidge, his number of missed greens being short sided drops drastically and his overall average score for that hole goes down.  

 

Almost every golfer wants to play a game where they hit their most perfectly struck shots straight down the middle of the fairway or dead at the flag.  Unfortunately, proper scoring golf is played when your misses end up in these better spots and your best struck shots actually end up in the edges of fairways or nearer to the fat side of the green because you made great strategical decisions. 

 

Another of golf's odd dichotomies!  

[DaveGoodrich]

3 hours ago, Dan Drake said:

In "Golf My Way," Jack Nicklaus showed an illustration where he is trying to hit his 10' fade to a right pin.  But he doesn't aim 10' left of the pin so that a perfect shot gets tight.  Hitting an over-cut in that situation would do what you correctly suggest, short siding him.  Instead, he aims 20' left of the pin so that a straight shot leaves him a 20'er, a "perfect" shot leaves him a 10'er, and an over-curve leaves him a tap in!  So while his average putt length does go up a smidge, his number of missed greens being short sided drops drastically and his overall average score for that hole goes down.

 

This one of those things I know, but struggle to implement consistently.  It just "feels" wrong to aim away from my target, even when I "know" it's the right play.  But we know that feel isn't real, especially with stochastic phenomena😱.  Thanks for the reminder to keep working at this.  

[chinaski]

Play what you enjoy the best. For some it is the score, some their best shots/personal enjoyment. For you it is your choice. If you play Net, score does not matter since it is relative.

[Nard_S]

Forgiveness overrated, workability underrated.

 

I think Ping does a great job of proving you can have both. 

[A.Princey]

This game is hard enough, just hit it straight....

 

 

/thread

Edited February 11, 2023 by A.Princey

[Stuart_G]

11 hours ago, DaveGoodrich said:

 

 But even if that curve is "natural" for you, the amount of curve is going to vary with the loft of the club and the clubhead speed.  So that curvature will vary with the club you hit, and how fast you swing that club.   And variations in the amount of curvature will also impact your vertical dispersion.  So we unconsciously calibrate and estimate all of that as best we can in order to choose our aim point.  But loft and clubhead speed don't affect your horizontal dispersion if our face and path and matched up so we are hitting a straight ball.  Yes, that's a big if.   So I'm not saying its easy to match the face to the path, but I am saying that learning to curve it less should improve your proximity to your target.   

 

Variations in the ball flight result come from variations in the delivery - it's the same regardless of what the 'normal' delivery might be.  And those variations in delivery are not limited to just loft and club head speed.   There can potentially be just as much variation in the face control and path control for someone with a 'normal' ball flight is straight as one who's normal flight is curved.  At least I've not seen anything (empirical) to support that someone who's normal ball flight is straight will have any better control or less variations in their face-to-path delivery and therefore lateral dispersion than someone who's normal flight is curved one way or another.   Nor has anything I've seen on course from my play or others support that idea.

 

Sure, face control and path control is critical to consistent results.  But that's true for any shot shape (including straight).

 

[DaveGoodrich]

On 2/11/2023 at 2:47 AM, Stuart_G said:

 

Variations in the ball flight result come from variations in the delivery - it's the same regardless of what the 'normal' delivery might be.  And those variations in delivery are not limited to just loft and club head speed.   There can potentially be just as much variation in the face control and path control for someone with a 'normal' ball flight is straight as one who's normal flight is curved.  At least I've not seen anything (empirical) to support that someone who's normal ball flight is straight will have any better control or less variations in their face-to-path delivery and therefore lateral dispersion than someone who's normal flight is curved one way or another.   Nor has anything I've seen on course from my play or others support that idea.

 

Sure, face control and path control is critical to consistent results.  But that's true for any shot shape (including straight).

 

I get that managing the face/path relationship is key regardless of shot shape, and that "straight hitters" don't necessarily control the variability in this relationship better than those with a consistent curve.  But the straight hitter has an easier time with aim and alignment.  Even if a player has a pretty consistent face/path, with a curved shot, the amount the start line differs from the target line will vary with every shot because the loft affects the spin axis tilt, because of clubhead speed differences, and because of the difference in distance the ball travels while curving.  Obviously, good players can learn to unconsciously "calibrate" these effects.  But, that isn't necessary with a straight ball. With a straight ball, your start line = your target line, regardless of what club you are hitting, and from what distance (other than accounting for cross winds).  

 

My argument is that the curve inherently adds at least one variable (start line) that doesn't exist with a straight ball.   I'm not saying its easier to hit a straight ball.  We all know that's not the case, because altering your "natural" face/path relationship is tough.  So I'm not talking here about on-the-course decision making.   I agree absolutely, that on the course, we should almost always hit our "stock" shot.  But over time, we should be working to make our stock shot straighter.   

 

Also, the ability to hit it straight is huge when hitting into the wind.  Again, it doesn't matter how strong that wind is, if you zero out your face to path, your start line = your target line.  If you don't, the speed of the wind will completely change where you need to aim.  

 

[Pepperturbo]

29 minutes ago, DaveGoodrich said:

he straight hitter has an easier time with aim and alignment.  Even if a player has a pretty consistent face/path, with a curved shot, the amount the start line differs from the target line will vary with every shot because the loft affects the spin axis tilt, because of clubhead speed differences, and because of the difference in distance the ball travels while curving. 

When learning golf, hitting the ball straight came naturally, so I worked hard on moving the ball in both directions.  Thus, I agree, straight hitters have an easier time with aim and alignment. 

 

Where I may deviate is when someone has a natural draw or fade, they will likely have a more difficult time controlling the curvature of the ball in the opposite direction, because their tendency is almost an extreme opposite of what they are attempting.

 

Example: Tom Lehman has always hit a nice draw.  Years back, he saw greater rewards in fading the ball, so abruptly quit drawing the ball, and focused his attention on developing a fade.  He spent around two years of dedicated work with no results.  Out of frustration and poor playing results, one day, he came to grips with his limitation.  He couldn't hit a trustable fade, so he went back to his draw.  Mind you, he spent two years trying.

 

Point; theory and what humans can actually do are different topics.  Amateurs are not nearly as good as pros like Lehman, yet he couldn't adjust.  If an amateur has a natural draw or fade inclination, intermittently trying to hit the opposite trajectory while playing is more of a recipe for yuk or a double cross crap shoot, maybe a waste of time.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Pepperturbo

[TLUBulldogGolf]

I think most people would be best served with not working it left and right and playing their natural shot as much as possible. If you want to alter flight I feel that trajectory and spin control are much more important than curve. 

Edited February 14, 2023 by TLUBulldogGolf

[Port and Starboard]

It's a visual thing for me....... and maybe for a few others on here as well?

 

When I look down at my current irons (T100's) at address, I get the visual feedback and a certain confidence to where I can fade-slice-draw-hook them with ease.

 

When I look down at my Ping G5 irons that have a lot of offset................they look "point and shoot" to me.  I can work the G5 irons somewhat, but not as easily as my T100's. I struggle a bit with G5's when hitting fades and low sweeping slice type recovery shots. 

 

Sounds crazy I guess. 

[Stuart_G]

13 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

When learning golf, hitting the ball straight came naturally, so I worked hard on moving the ball in both directions.  Thus, I agree, straight hitters have an easier time with aim and alignment. 

 

I'm lucky enough to have a pretty straight ball - at least with the mid and short irons.  But the longer clubs are not naturally straight for me.   So I got both types of "natural" shots in the bag so-to-speak.     I'll have to disagree about aim and alignment being easier with the straight shot.   But more importantly and to the original point, playing a straight ball also doesn't help with dispersion or consistency of the shots.

 

13 hours ago, DaveGoodrich said:

Even if a player has a pretty consistent face/path, with a curved shot, the amount the start line differs from the target line will vary with every shot because the loft affects the spin axis tilt, because of clubhead speed differences, and because of the difference in distance the ball travels while curving. 

 

Sorry but those differences and variations will exist for both types of shots equally.

 

 

13 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

 

Point; theory and what humans can actually do are different topics.  Amateurs are not nearly as good as pros like Lehman, yet he couldn't adjust.

 

On the other hand, the pro's have much higher standards for success than amateurs.    So an amateur might be able to achieve results that are acceptable to their level of play (but would not be successful at the much higher level of play).

 

13 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

If an amateur has a natural draw or fade inclination, intermittently trying to hit the opposite trajectory while playing is more of a recipe for yuk or a double cross crap shoot, maybe a waste of time.

 

 

I would not say a complete waste of time to at least put some work into it (if one is interested). Because you never know what you'll be able to do until you try - but I certainly do agree that one needs to be aware of their limitations and must re-evaluate their practice priorities from time to time.

 

 

 

[ShortGolfer]

I got  a new driver in July.  Figured out that I could hit draws as well as fades with it and scored my lowest round in September!  Makes a huge difference on a Executive course with 13 yard wide fairways.

 

But, I'm a cross dominant stroke survivor.  Not only do I have a really unusual neurology, but I am fully aware of a lot of body motions that normal people do automatically and take for granted.

I spent a month in a rehab ward learning to walk again.  As well as months learning to walk on a variety of surfaces.  Then tougher tasks requiring balance.  Now my balance and coordination are better than average.

[ShortGolfer]

I've been told that my ability to learn is unusual. I just keep learning and learning and learning.

I don't really plateau because of my awareness and ability to see small details.  So I always have a good idea which way to go.

As an analogy, it is harder to get lost if you always have a sense of the right direction to travel.

 

I also have reasonable expectations when I practice.  Yesterday was a tough day at work so I wasn't able to focus as well on my swing.

Worse dispersion than usual.  But I practice on good days as well as bad.  

Edited February 15, 2023 by ShortGolfer

[Pepperturbo]

8 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

On the other hand, the pro's have much higher standards for success than amateurs.    So an amateur might be able to achieve results that are acceptable to their level of play (but would not be successful at the much higher level of play).

Boy, nice and fuzzy words. LOL

 

It's a matter of how accurate someone's perception is of himself, what he's doing, and the extent they push to improve as opposed to settle for less than and call it something else...  I have never been a settle or forgiveness kinda guy, always one that measures up and emulates the more accomplished.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Pepperturbo

[Stuart_G]

8 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Boy, nice and fuzzy words. LOL

 

Seems pretty clear to me.   Everyone has to make a choice on when they think they are ready to take some "new" shot they've been working on from the range to the course.   Different individuals will not all make that decision at the same level of proficiency with that new shot.     In most cases, an amateur has a lot less to loose than a pro if they make the decision prematurely.

 

8 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

It's a matter of how accurate someone's perception is of himself, what he's doing, and the extent they push to improve as opposed to settle for less than and call it something else...  I have never been a settle or forgiveness kinda guy, always one that measures up and emulates the more accomplished.

 

 

 

 

Yes it is about how realistic their expectations are of themself.   A skill the vast majority of amateur golfers do not posses.   But that's completely independent of how much they may (or may not) push themselves or what they might strive for or what they want to emulate.

 

And everyone "settles" for a particular level of skill that's less than perfect - otherwise, they'd never make it out to the course 😁

 

 

 

[RainShadow]

Forgiveness.

I also want my irons not to have any directional bias or too much offset.

I can’t work the ball consistently, so I try to produce the same flight as much as possible (silght draw or straight) .

[Pepperturbo]

23 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

And everyone "settles" for a particular level of skill that's less than perfect - otherwise, they'd never make it out to the course 😁

 

Com'on, that is a restricted perception; not everyone settles.  Having been in the human behavior and modification business for over forty years; the only reason for not making out to the course or accomplishing a goal is it's easier to not go, or easier to give up on a goal, then keep pushing forward.

 

A few much younger buddies, that played in college, use age, weight and aches as reasons for their games going backwards.  Though those maybe accepted to some people, they are not valid reasons for people that never settle or give up.  I went from beginner to 2 index, up to 6, down to 4 and hopefully back down to 2 or better by the end of this year.  I will keep chasing my way, as long as my body holds up.

[Stuart_G]

4 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

Com'on, that is a restricted perception; not everyone settles. 

 

Of course they do.  To say otherwise explicitly implies some level of perfection has been reached - and we know that's never happening.

 

Maybe you've lost track of (or maybe I didn't do a good job making the point in the first place) is that I've been talking about ONLY what level of accomplishment is require before a player is willing to "put in play" a particular swing or technique they've been working on.   That's completely different from the question of whether or not they continue to pursue further improvement or not after that point - which seems to me is what you are talking about.

 

In that other respect, yes there are many who choose not to pursue or put effort into further improvement.  There are also many who think they are but really aren't making the effort.  And there are those who will continue to try and improve until they are no longer capable of playing any more. 

 

But that really has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.   That the level of accomplishment to put a skill into play is going to be very different (and much more relaxed) for an amateur than it is for a pro.

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Stuart_G