Better players - misses and the right spots

[PracticeSwinger]

We always hear that better players are minimizing their mistakes, trying to avoid the big number at all cost. Suppose that we look at a subset of players, one for which complete ball striking mishits are very rare, and if those players know of their tendencies (by Decade and/or other or just common knowledge about their game) - are good players that aren't elite still too agressive with their target?

 

Always wondered about this because, and generally speaking (I know each hole is different and yardage plays a big role) picking approach shots as an example, a tucked pin behind a bunker on either side of the green would lead to believe that aiming for the middle of the green would be ideal - might that be suboptimal in that if a percentage of your mishits to the tucked pin side still end up in the rough to that side (or in the bunker), you've just shortsided yourself and bogey is now really into play - while if you were more conservative and aimed for the fat part of the green: your extreme misses get close to the hole, your average shots leave you a long-ish 2 putts for par, while your extreme misses on the other side leave you with a long chip up and down, which would generally be easier than the short-sided one. Same concept with chipping, being too agressive in trying to land it on the fringe on a downslope and let it release to the hole, that would bring a doudle-chip into play if it doesn't get there.

 

As a rule of thumb also on target - since we know the make rate of 12 footers isn't that much better than 21 footers - and that 3putt avoidance for those distances is similar... are we generally too aggresive with proximity?... If trying to get it close brings short side issues obviously.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Varry_Hardon

[me05501]

Lou Stagner and other stat gurus like to point out the huge gap between our expectations on approach shots and what is shown in the stats.

 

Generally speaking we all overestimate our accuracy in the short iron approach range. We think we hit it to 20' on average but statistically it's more like 40' (in round numbers). 

 

This is why aiming for the fat part of the green is more effective than pin seeking. If your goal on an approach shot is to have your next stroke be a putt, the fat part of the green gives you the most margin for error.

 

A lot of people say to aim for the "middle" of the green. I say the fat part. Every green is shaped differently and the most forgiving section isn't always in the middle. I just want to get a putter in my hands because my worst stroke with a putter is still pretty good. 

 

This is one of the reasons I think rangefinders are bad for a lot of players. The average player shoots the pin, decides on a club, and then tries to hit his shot the exact distance to the pin. He doesn't consider how the shot might roll out or the right trajectory to hold the green or whether there's a comfortable miss available behind the green or to one side of it. It's just shoot pin, pull club, swing and cuss. 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by me05501

[phizzy30]

I have general rule I follow in regards to irons.  If it's 150 and in and there isn't too much trouble around the green, I will get aggressive.  If it's outside of that or there's too much trouble, I just aim for the fat part of the green and accept that I'll make par or if I make a good putt, I can get that bonus birdie.  I'm pretty consistent when it comes to ball striking with mid to short irons. 

[MelloYello]

27 minutes ago, me05501 said:

Lou Stagner and other stat gurus like to point out the huge gap between our expectations on approach shots and what is shown in the stats.

 

Generally speaking we all overestimate our accuracy in the short iron approach range. We think we hit it to 20' on average but statistically it's more like 40' (in round numbers). 

 

This is why aiming for the fat part of the green is more effective than pin seeking. If your goal on an approach shot is to have your next stroke be a putt, the fat part of the green gives us the most margin for error.

 

A lot of people say to aim for the "middle" of the green. I say the fat part. Every green is shaped differently and the most forgiving section isn't always in the middle. I just want to get a putter in my hands because my worst stroke with a putter is still pretty good. 

 

This is one of the reasons I think rangefinders are bad for a lot of players. The average player shoots the pin, decides on a club, and then tries to hit his shot the exact distance to the pin. He doesn't consider how the shot might roll out or the right trajectory to hold the green or whether there's a comfortable miss available behind the green or to one side of it. It's just shoot pin, pull club, swing and cuss. 

 

 

 

That's all very true. 

 

The one adverse effect is that instead of facing 20- or 30-ft putts from the fringe or otherwise straight-forward chip shots (which for the good golfer can be easy, 75%+ conversion opportunities), the person aiming well away from the flag is going to face more extreme-range lag putts (>50-ft). The problem there is that most golfers don't practice that stuff at all and will probably 3-putt much more than they're accustomed to if they start giving themselves those shots, even if they're "hitting more GIR." 

 

To me, this is why you can't talk about misses as purely X-ft from the stick. Golf is a lot more complicated than that. It might be better to aim towards the flag, accepting a potential short-sided miss if the up & down is easy enough. That totally depends on the situation and the players' ability to scramble and what their stock shot is (which may define their typical miss direction). 

 

.

Edited August 15, 2023 by MelloYello

[PracticeSwinger]

15 minutes ago, me05501 said:

Lou Stagner and other stat gurus like to point out the huge gap between our expectations on approach shots and what is shown in the stats.

 

Generally speaking we all overestimate our accuracy in the short iron approach range. We think we hit it to 20' on average but statistically it's more like 40' (in round numbers). 

 

This is why aiming for the fat part of the green is more effective than pin seeking. If your goal on an approach shot is to have your next stroke be a putt, the fat part of the green gives us the most margin for error.

 

A lot of people say to aim for the "middle" of the green. I say the fat part. Every green is shaped differently and the most forgiving section isn't always in the middle. I just want to get a putter in my hands because my worst stroke with a putter is still pretty good. 

 

This is one of the reasons I think rangefinders are bad for a lot of players. The average player shoots the pin, decides on a club, and then tries to hit his shot the exact distance to the pin. He doesn't consider how the shot might roll out or the right trajectory to hold the green or whether there's a comfortable miss available behind the green or to one side of it. It's just shoot pin, pull club, swing and cuss. 

 

 

Agree on all of this, great post. And that's why I was wondering about this because in tracking every shot, I know I'm way better on average with a 42ft putt than a 11yds short sided bad lie, bad stance chip (might say more about my short game than anything though) - once you focus and devote alot of your practive time to distance control on longer putts and make % from the 4-10ft range, it relieve a lot of the stress on your approach shots - and was wondering as a general rule if we don't pick too much of an agressive target even on shorter approach shots since getting it to 16ft isn't worth it in the long run compared to 24ft if it means a risky short-sided situation

[MelloYello]

2 minutes ago, Varry_Hardon said:

Agree on all of this, great post. And that's why I was wondering about this because in tracking every shot, I know I'm way better on average with a 42ft putt than a 11yds short sided bad lie, bad stance chip (might say more about my short game than anything though) - once you focus and devote alot of your practive time to distance control on longer putts and make % from the 4-10ft range, it relieve a lot of the stress on your approach shots - and was wondering as a general rule if we don't pick too much of an agressive target even on shorter approach shots since getting it to 16ft isn't worth it in the long run compared to 24ft if it means a risky short-sided situation

 

I don't think anyone would equate a 42' putt with such a terrible short-sided miss. If that's the question, yeah, you're being too aggressive. 

[PracticeSwinger]

Just now, MelloYello said:

 

I don't think anyone would equate a 42' putt with such a terrible short-sided miss. If that's the question, yeah, you're being too aggressive. 

Surely agree with that, was just coming up with an example on the fly, pretty sure we're on the same page.

[MelloYello]

7 minutes ago, Varry_Hardon said:

Surely agree with that, was just coming up with an example on the fly, pretty sure we're on the same page.

 

You need to evaluate your decisions based on the difficulty of the actual up & down in question (not just go by SG% which considers only distance). 

 

Consider that if a good player gets up & down 50% of the time, that might actually be 80% from easy spots and 20% from hard spots. So you don't necessarily need to be scared of the easy up & down. 

 

A good example would be pin positions at the front of a green. A miss short is technically "short-sided" but it's also an easy 2-putt from the apron. This is why front pin positions are often considered "easy" on Par-3s. 

 

If a pin position is towards the back of a green, it's probably much more penal to short-side yourself by going long where there's a huge drop-off or deep rough or being in an adjacent bunker with no green to work with. 

 

The good/experienced player considers all this stuff intuitively, but it's not bad to reason it out. 

 

.

Edited August 15, 2023 by MelloYello

[PracticeSwinger]

12 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

 

You need to evaluate your decisions based on the difficulty of the actual up & down in question (not just go by SG% which considers only distance). 

 

Consider that if a good player gets up & down 50% of the time, that might actually be 80% from easy spots and 20% from hard spots. So you don't necessarily need to be scared of the easy up & down. 

 

A good example would be pin positions at the front of a green. A miss short is technically "short-sided" but it's also an easy 2-putt from the apron. This is why front pin positions are often considered "easy" on Par-3s. 

 

If a pin position is towards the back of a green, it's probably much more penal to short-side yourself by going long where there's a huge drop-off or deep rough or being in an adjacent bunker with no green to work with. 

 

The good/experienced player considers all this stuff intuitively, but it's not bad to reason it out. 

 

.

Thanks, good info on the thought process, exactly what I was looking for. Seems intuitive but pretty sure the 'average good enough' player doesn't take all that into account, all the time, (give me that pin number, grab club, go) which would help them if done correctly.

[naval2006]

More after than not you’re safe in any course when you aim at the fat part of the green or when you get short of the green. We am players often hit a mediocre approach and end up 10 yards short of the front. Most of the time we’ll have a chip or bump and run to the hole.

 

 

[me05501]

1 hour ago, MelloYello said:

 

You need to evaluate your decisions based on the difficulty of the actual up & down in question (not just go by SG% which considers only distance). 

 

Consider that if a good player gets up & down 50% of the time, that might actually be 80% from easy spots and 20% from hard spots. So you don't necessarily need to be scared of the easy up & down. 

 

A good example would be pin positions at the front of a green. A miss short is technically "short-sided" but it's also an easy 2-putt from the apron. This is why front pin positions are often considered "easy" on Par-3s. 

 

If a pin position is towards the back of a green, it's probably much more penal to short-side yourself by going long where there's a huge drop-off or deep rough or being in an adjacent bunker with no green to work with. 

 

The good/experienced player considers all this stuff intuitively, but it's not bad to reason it out. 

 

.

 

 

All of this is true but a lot of it is also course design dependent. 

 

Greens are usually elevated to promote drainage and keep them from sitting underwater for any length of time. Some are surrounded by rough thick enough to stop a ball. Others are surrounded by a fairway cut that allows a ball to roll far away from the green. This factors into the difference between the total area of the green vs. the effective size of the green for the shot you're playing.

 

If you're coming in with a wedge the effective area of the green is larger due to the spin you can generate. If you're hitting into the same green with a modern 7 iron the effective target can be much smaller (assuming the goal is to have the ball finish on the putting surface). If there's rough around the green the green will play a bit larger. If not the area you need to hit can be quite small. 

 

One of the most gutting sensations in golf is that moment your ball starts rolling and you know it's going somewhere bad but you have no control over where it's gonna stop. It's especially cruel when it seems like your ball is going to hold the green and ends up 20 yards away instead. Ugh.

 

I also dread the O.B. long shot which is so common on courses in residential developments. When you're going for a back pin but carry the ball three yards too far and have to watch it skitter off the back and across the cart path...it's the worst. 

 

A lot of those negative outcomes can be avoided simply by ignoring pins. 

 

There's one simple fact I wish I'd absorbed far earlier in my playing days: good golf is boring.

 

Solid play is not a thrill ride. It's a fairway hit followed by a GIR. It's a birdie putt followed by a tap-in par. It's making a five footer to save bogey after missing a green. 

[North Butte]

What about if you aim at the middle of the green, 25 feet left of the hole, then still manage to leave yourself a short-sided terrible lie? 

 

That outcome is 100% in play for every shot I hit. 

[PracticeSwinger]

8 minutes ago, me05501 said:

 

 

All of this is true but a lot of it is also course design dependent. 

 

Greens are usually elevated to promote drainage and keep them from sitting underwater for any length of time. Some are surrounded by rough thick enough to stop a ball. Others are surrounded by a fairway cut that allows a ball to roll far away from the green. This factors into the difference between the total area of the green vs. the effective size of the green for the shot you're playing.

 

If you're coming in with a wedge the effective area of the green is larger due to the spin you can generate. If you're hitting into the same green with a modern 7 iron the effective target can be much smaller (assuming the goal is to have the ball finish on the putting surface). If there's rough around the green the green will play a bit larger. If not the area you need to hit can be quite small. 

 

One of the most gutting sensations in golf is that moment your ball starts rolling and you know it's going somewhere bad but you have no control over where it's gonna stop. It's especially cruel when it seems like your ball is going to hold the green and ends up 20 yards away instead. Ugh.

 

I also dread the O.B. long shot which is so common on courses in residential developments. When you're going for a back pin but carry the ball three yards too far and have to watch it skitter off the back and across the cart path...it's the worst. 

 

A lot of those negative outcomes can be avoided simply by ignoring pins. 

 

There's one simple fact I wish I'd absorbed far earlier in my playing days: good golf is boring.

 

Solid play is not a thrill ride. It's a fairway hit followed by a GIR. It's a birdie putt followed by a tap-in par. It's making a five footer to save bogey after missing a green. 

Good post again. Extreme example was the 79yds hole at LACC during the US Open, not much pin seeking and we're talking about the best players in the world on a perfect lie with a shot under 100yds.

 

Been wondering if there not a bit of 'snake bite' aspect. You play it boring, go at the fat part because it's a sucker pin, you get it to 45ft but then you leave it short 6ft and miss the next one. Tough for people that don't do this for a living to stay the course and dont' have regrets : 'should have gone for it, was only 115yds and missed a definite birdie chance here'... 

[PracticeSwinger]

5 minutes ago, North Butte said:

What about if you aim at the middle of the green, 25 feet left of the hole, then still manage to leave yourself a short-sided terrible lie? 

 

That outcome is 100% in play for every shot I hit. 

Exactly. Of course every shot is dependent of our tendencies and the ultimate goal is to have the tighest dispersion possible (ball striking is king). I was wondering (and still am) if it was not better for you then to aim even more left (obvisouly it's related to the green complex) so that your extreme misses left would bring a chip shot that isn't short sided, normal shot leaves a long first putt (not the worst outcome if you're ok at 3putt avoidance) and those going right get closer to the hole - with nothing ending up short sided.

 

Basically shifting your dispersion oval so nothing is short-sided, since the 'makeable birdie 8 foot circle' will still be in that dispersion oval. (tough to illustrate without images). I don't know.

[me05501]

1 minute ago, Varry_Hardon said:

Been wondering if there not a bit of 'snake bite' aspect. You play it boring, go at the fat part because it's a sucker pin, you get it to 45ft but then you leave it short 6ft and miss the next one. Tough for people that don't do this for a living to stay the course and dont' have regrets : 'should have gone for it, was only 115yds and missed a definite birdie chance here'... 

 

That reminds me of a chat I had with a struggling hopeful from the Nationwide Tour back in the day. 

 

We were discussing my 20' putt and I said something like "I usually just try to get these close enough to tap in." He said "we're trying to make 'em all. Always."

 

As we talked through it he said that everyone playing for a living understands that making putts is critical, especially on the junior tour. Everyone knows the stats are against making a majority of 20' putts so everyone is focused on trying to have shorter, more makable chances. THAT goal logically leads to wanting to have shorter approaches, which leads to wanting to have longer straighter drives, which leads to the tendency to carry a ton of stress or high expectations into every shot. 

 

He explained that this is the logic behind the constant struggle to play one shot at a time. Forget the last one, ignore the next one. Focus 100% on the one you have to execute in that moment.

 

Easier said than done, obviously. 

[North Butte]

For my game, I just don't face many shots where I can almost totally eliminate being short-sided (or in the rough or in a bunker) by simply moving my aiming point 20-30 feet. I suppose there's times that might lessen my chance of ending up in trouble from 15% to 10% or something but short of chipping the ball along the fairway 40 yards at a time I can't "course manage" myself out of bad results.

 

But I do know this. Constantly aiming at targets where my very best, perfectly struck, once-or-twice-per-round quality good iron shot would leave me a 25-30 foot putt with some break to it is no way to play golf. I'd quit the game if the only time I was ever within 10 feet of the hole was because I aimed 30 feet left and accidentally missed my spot by 20 feet in the lucky direction. 

 

That sort of "course management" is just dumb and turns the game into some sort of fearful, disaster-avoidance crazed obsession. 

[me05501]

7 minutes ago, North Butte said:

For my game, I just don't face many shots where I can almost totally eliminate being short-sided (or in the rough or in a bunker) by simply moving my aiming point 20-30 feet. I suppose there's times that might lessen my chance of ending up in trouble from 15% to 10% or something but short of chipping the ball along the fairway 40 yards at a time I can't "course manage" myself out of bad results.

 

But I do know this. Constantly aiming at targets where my very best, perfectly struck, once-or-twice-per-round quality good iron shot would leave me a 25-30 foot putt with some break to it is no way to play golf. I'd quit the game if the only time I was ever within 10 feet of the hole was because I aimed 30 feet left and accidentally missed my spot by 20 feet in the lucky direction. 

 

That sort of "course management" is just dumb and turns the game into some sort of fearful, disaster-avoidance crazed obsession. 

 

 

Some people would say hitting only two good iron shots per round is also no way to play golf, but I get your point.

 

I've heard a lot of guys say something similar ("I'm not out here to lay up" etc). Not many of them were scoring well with that strategy, but not everyone has scoring well as their main goal. 

 

Me? I like to score well and I'm not especially long so fairways and greens makes sense to me.

 

I have other buddies who are really long and they attack the course way differently than I do. The fun for me is tallying up the strokes at the end and making them wonder why some dude 10 years older than them that rarely hits the ball 250 yards is taking their money. 

[Primo1868]

8 minutes ago, North Butte said:

For my game, I just don't face many shots where I can almost totally eliminate being short-sided (or in the rough or in a bunker) by simply moving my aiming point 20-30 feet. I suppose there's times that might lessen my chance of ending up in trouble from 15% to 10% or something but short of chipping the ball along the fairway 40 yards at a time I can't "course manage" myself out of bad results.

 

But I do know this. Constantly aiming at targets where my very best, perfectly struck, once-or-twice-per-round quality good iron shot would leave me a 25-30 foot putt with some break to it is no way to play golf. I'd quit the game if the only time I was ever within 10 feet of the hole was because I aimed 30 feet left and accidentally missed my spot by 20 feet in the lucky direction. 

 

That sort of "course management" is just dumb and turns the game into some sort of fearful, disaster-avoidance crazed obsession. 

I keep re-reading your post and trying to understand your position.

 

Hitting an iron to ~25 ft from any yardage >100 yds is almost PGA tour average. The vast majority of scratch or + handicap players play "boring" golf. If your goal in golf is to hit one shot stiff while carding a 90, then I can understand your position. My goal is to keep the ball in play, hit as many greens as possible and score as low as I can. Playing well and scoring well is more fun to me.

 

I think your first paragraph sums up where my confusion is - there is plenty of value in course management to lower scores. Many people have anecdotal evidence of course managing themselves out of bad results. I think what you have to remember is that course management is about results based on 100's of shots, and not one result when you chose to pick a "smart" target on that shot. 

[PracticeSwinger]

13 minutes ago, North Butte said:

For my game, I just don't face many shots where I can almost totally eliminate being short-sided (or in the rough or in a bunker) by simply moving my aiming point 20-30 feet. I suppose there's times that might lessen my chance of ending up in trouble from 15% to 10% or something but short of chipping the ball along the fairway 40 yards at a time I can't "course manage" myself out of bad results.

 

But I do know this. Constantly aiming at targets where my very best, perfectly struck, once-or-twice-per-round quality good iron shot would leave me a 25-30 foot putt with some break to it is no way to play golf. I'd quit the game if the only time I was ever within 10 feet of the hole was because I aimed 30 feet left and accidentally missed my spot by 20 feet in the lucky direction. 

 

That sort of "course management" is just dumb and turns the game into some sort of fearful, disaster-avoidance crazed obsession. 

That is exactly what I'm trying to figure out. I'm an ok stick, but I'm wondering if I'm not 'more agressive' than better players than me in general and if that 'disater-avoidance' mindset is what enables them to avoid big numbers - if their 55% up and down numbers are that way because their chips are from easier spots in the long run, if their make rate putt numbers are better across because of where they end up. Or if they're just better at controling their shots in general and can save par from tougher spots. 

[MelloYello]

1 hour ago, me05501 said:

 

 

All of this is true but a lot of it is also course design dependent. 

 

Greens are usually elevated to promote drainage and keep them from sitting underwater for any length of time. Some are surrounded by rough thick enough to stop a ball. Others are surrounded by a fairway cut that allows a ball to roll far away from the green. This factors into the difference between the total area of the green vs. the effective size of the green for the shot you're playing.

 

If you're coming in with a wedge the effective area of the green is larger due to the spin you can generate. If you're hitting into the same green with a modern 7 iron the effective target can be much smaller (assuming the goal is to have the ball finish on the putting surface). If there's rough around the green the green will play a bit larger. If not the area you need to hit can be quite small. 

 

One of the most gutting sensations in golf is that moment your ball starts rolling and you know it's going somewhere bad but you have no control over where it's gonna stop. It's especially cruel when it seems like your ball is going to hold the green and ends up 20 yards away instead. Ugh.

 

I also dread the O.B. long shot which is so common on courses in residential developments. When you're going for a back pin but carry the ball three yards too far and have to watch it skitter off the back and across the cart path...it's the worst. 

 

A lot of those negative outcomes can be avoided simply by ignoring pins. 

 

There's one simple fact I wish I'd absorbed far earlier in my playing days: good golf is boring.

 

Solid play is not a thrill ride. It's a fairway hit followed by a GIR. It's a birdie putt followed by a tap-in par. It's making a five footer to save bogey after missing a green. 

 

Yeah, that was my point. People need to be realistic, looking at their own situations and figure out the smartest strategy for their games on their courses. 

 

My home course is a keep-it-in-front-of-you, avoid-the-big-miss, short-is-usually-safe type setup. For us, with smaller greens, you just have to accept that you're going to miss sometimes and so it's the "easy" up & down that we look for. Some guys putt from the short stuff. Others, like me, just develop good touch chipping. 

 

We basically all just find places to miss that allow us to access the flag. What I mean there is, 'can I get the next chip/pitch/putt close?'

 

As long as you can do that, you'll be fine, unless you're someone that needs to improve their short game. But to me, short game is all those things: putts from long range, putts from off the green, chips, pitches, etc.

 

.

Edited August 15, 2023 by MelloYello

[MelloYello]

1 minute ago, Varry_Hardon said:

That is exactly what I'm trying to figure out. I'm an ok stick, but I'm wondering if I'm not 'more aggressive' than better players than me in general and if that 'disaster-avoidance' mindset is what enables them to avoid big numbers - if their 55% up and down numbers are that way because their chips are from easier spots in the long run, if their make rate putt numbers are better across because of where they end up. Or if they're just better at controlling their shots in general and can save par from tougher spots. 

 

Long range putts are okay. Easy up & downs are, too. 

 

Nobody will survive dodging bullets though. Continually leave yourself in tricky spots and you'll pay for it. 

 

[wagolfer7]

I think a lot of this is just over thinking.  

 

I travel quite a bit for work and get to golf a lot on these trips.  Often times I'm playing a course for the first time.  Besides the obvious stuff, like water in front of the green with a front pin, I'm firing at pins.  

 

Most public and even private golf courses are not setup difficult enough to punish a slight missed shot.  Fast greens and long rough is what makes missed shots around the green something you need to plan for. 

 

In competitive play at a golf course that is setup tough, then there's a lot more consideration on where my miss is going to be.  There are times I'd rather be chipping up hill vs a 30 foot downhill putt.  So I'll still be firing at the pin or even short sided part of the green to avoid a difficult 2 putt situation. 

 

PGA stats and US Open holes are worthless to compare to what us normal amateurs play on a regular basis.  

 

Tournament conditions at a golf course that can handle it, make a much different playing experience. 

 

Most greens are not fast enough in my opinion to really worry about being short-sided, in the bunker, etc.  Good players depending on your definition, is not worried up getting up and down at a lot of these regular tracks with every day setups.    

[PracticeSwinger]

2 minutes ago, wagolfer7 said:

Most greens are not fast enough in my opinion to really worry about being short-sided, in the bunker, etc.  Good players depending on your definition, is not worried up getting up and down at a lot of these regular tracks with every day setups.    

Thanks for your input, what I was after. Confirms that I need to keep working hard on this, it's mainly a physical skill and not as much as a 'mental' shift.

[me05501]

2 minutes ago, Varry_Hardon said:

Thanks for your input, what I was after. Confirms that I need to keep working hard on this, it's mainly a physical skill and not as much as a 'mental' shift.

 

There are so many little mental shifts we have to make to get the most out of our physical skills. 

Lately I've been focusing on making sure chips and long putts *at least* reach the cup. I've played a whole lifetime just trying to get them close, but I want to move my margin of error beyond the cup. Leaving them short is "no way to play golf" as @North Butte would probably agree!

[North Butte]

12 minutes ago, Primo1868 said:

I keep re-reading your post and trying to understand your position.

 

Hitting an iron to ~25 ft from any yardage >100 yds is almost PGA tour average. The vast majority of scratch or + handicap players play "boring" golf. If your goal in golf is to hit one shot stiff while carding a 90, then I can understand your position. My goal is to keep the ball in play, hit as many greens as possible and score as low as I can. Playing well and scoring well is more fun to me.

 

I think your first paragraph sums up where my confusion is - there is plenty of value in course management to lower scores. Many people have anecdotal evidence of course managing themselves out of bad results. I think what you have to remember is that course management is about results based on 100's of shots, and not one result when you chose to pick a "smart" target on that shot. 

No idea how to make it any clearer.

 

When a hole is cut 8 yards from the right edge of a 25-yard wide green and I'm 100 yards away in the middle of the fairway, the only reason NOT to aim at the flag is if there's a water hazard or knee deep rough just off the green. Otherwise, it would be stupid to aim at the middle of the green, 20 feet left of the hole, instead of aiming at the flag.

 

If not 100 yards, then how close do you have to be to aim at the flag. 70 yards? 50 yards? 20 feet? 

 

Within that average 40 foot proximity there are shots that end up 40 yards FROM MY TARGET (which are going to badly miss the green no matter where I am) and there are shots that end up 10 feet FROM MY TARGET (which are legit one-putt opportunities). You seem to be operating on the theory that you can eliminate some meaningful number of horrible shots by simply moving your aiming point 20-25 feet one way or another. Maybe that's true for you, for my game it's not. 

 

The question is whether making your target something other than the hole is going to save you enough double and triple bogeys to be worth not even trying to hit it close. If you play courses so penal that you have to do that from 100 yards (or even 150 yards) then I have to ask why, why, why?

 

 

[Primo1868]

3 minutes ago, North Butte said:

No idea how to make it any clearer.

 

When a hole is cut 8 yards from the right edge of a 25-yard wide green and I'm 100 yards away in the middle of the fairway, the only reason NOT to aim at the flag is if there's a water hazard or knee deep rough just off the green. Otherwise, it would be stupid to aim at the middle of the green, 20 feet left of the hole, instead of aiming at the flag.

 

If not 100 yards, then how close do you have to be to aim at the flag. 70 yards? 50 yards? 20 feet? 

 

Within that average 40 foot proximity there are shots that end up 40 yards FROM MY TARGET (which are going to badly miss the green no matter where I am) and there are shots that end up 10 feet FROM MY TARGET (which are legit one-putt opportunities). You seem to be operating on the theory that you can eliminate some meaningful number of horrible shots by simply moving your aiming point 20-25 feet one way or another. Maybe that's true for you, for my game it's not. 

 

The question is whether making your target something other than the hole is going to save you enough double and triple bogeys to be worth not even trying to hit it close. If you play courses so penal that you have to do that from 100 yards (or even 150 yards) then I have to ask why, why, why?

 

 

I think therein lies the difference. 

[North Butte]

I can only go with the old-school Bob Rotella type advice. 

 

If you face a shot where it would require an unusually long, good or precise swing or else it's in trouble then don't try to play that shot. Pick a different target (and in effect lay up, even if it's just "laying up" to the far side of the green somewhere). 

 

But you've got to recognize the opportunities where you can hit it close with a good shot and even your likely mishits will be playable. In those cases, stare down the flag and picture the ball going into the hole.

And then it's just a matter of committing and executing an "aggressive" (Rotella's term) shot toward your target even if your target is "conservative". 

[Pepperturbo]

Unless I am playing a $$$ game, I keep it simple and always play for par.  That can mean different choices depending on hole layout and green complex.  My buddy, however, always plays aggressive golf, and forever loses for it.  The funny thing is, I am naturally aggressive, and he's not at all.

 

Inside 150yds I seldom miss the green, and been known to purposely miss the green short because of green undulations and where the pin is positioned; it's easier to pitch/chip too.  Because I travel a great deal and play countless unfamiliar courses, I tend to play a more cautious course mgt game, thus rely on + pitching and chipping game to save par or setup an occasional birdie, but always 2-putt. 

 

Most of the public greens in SOCA are kinda small and rather slow, compared to private club larger, undulated and fast greens which are my preference.  When I stand behind the ball, I determine my shot plan, but eye where the best bailout area is.  My iron dispersion is low so don't overly concern myself.  That can mean if the pin is in one position and best bailout is somewhere else, I am likely to target my shot somewhere in between.

 

Example, I frequent a 218yd Par 3, slightly uphill, over water, it's 198yds to green apron, 195yds the ball hits and rolls backward downhill, possibly into the pond.  I use either 2 iron or 3 iron to right side of green, or right of green, knowing there's plenty of bailout area to hit baby pitch/chip shots at the pin, easy par.  Key is NOT be short.

[SNIPERBBB]

Anyone taking extreme mishits into the their planning is a psychopath or soon will be. You take into account your normal shot, your normal miss and your "if I hit I pure it" shot. Mostly just the normal miss and your normal shot.

 

Normal and if I pure it should be safe shots . Normal miss stuffs it near the hole.

 

The short side bogey man is something I think gets over hyped here. There's times when you need beware of doing so but most times it's a simple chip that's makeable for birdie.

[North Butte]

15 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

The short side bogey man is something I think gets over hyped here. There's times when you need beware of doing so but most times it's a simple chip that's makeable for birdie.

On my home course, if within a few yards of the green it's usually short or short-ish grass. So yeah, maybe I happen to miss a simple short iron shot into a short-sided place and maybe it happens to find a spot of bad rough and maybe I botch the wedge out of the rough. I'm a 12hcp golfer, once in a while I catch a bad break. 

 

And I bet you some smart guy is going to chime in an tell me I wouldn't be a 12hcp if I just aimed at the middle of the green even with a wedge from the fairway. I don't know why I rise to the bait of these silly "always lay up, never aim at the hole, every hacker could break par with a good caddie" threads.