Joe Mayo vs Shortgamechef DEATH MATCH (not really, I'm click baiting)

[Brian Manzella]

I've been working on a comprehensive video all week. Should be finished tomorrow. 

 

When Joe was looking for everyone to agree with him on the 10°+ down increased the chance for solid hit (in that clip posted above), NOBODY said a peep. Because practically nobody agrees with that.

 

Too risky a move to claim "more solid shots"....

[GolfTurkey]

8 hours ago, MPStrat said:

Mayo making his case
 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3EG_ClPoFi/?igsh=MXFqZjlkbGhxZ2oyZw==

 

James Ridyard be like:

 

[iacas]

Joe maintains that it increases the chances of a solid hit. @Brian Manzella doesn’t believe that to be true. That’s all it boils down to.

[CasualLie]

Given Brian's body of knowledge / expertise, it's practically a given he will show solid hits don't require being 10* down.  But that's not all at stake, is it?  Mayo positioned it as 10* giving you a MORE solid hit, so it will be interesting to see if another angle produces a MORE solid hit.  And remember, we are talking about a small wedge around the green.

 

Inevitably, the next "chapter" of this debate will for better or worse (mostly worse) will center around the definition of "more solid".  🤪

 

And for this type of shot, is "more solid" really what matters.  Clearly, as Brian was debating in the video, it's friction that matters.  There are many ways to generate friction, we see it every week on Tour.  And we have seen less attack angles plus friction generate plenty of spin.  Are those shots "more solid"?  I don't know.  Don't care.  What I care about is, given the situation at hand - lie, distance, how much carry/roll, etc... - can I produce a reasonably predictable outcome? 

 

[iacas]

Just now, CasualLie said:

Given Brian's body of knowledge / expertise, it's practically a given he will show solid hits don't require being 10* down.  But that's not all at stake, is it?  Mayo positioned it as 10* giving you a MORE solid hit, so it will be interesting to see if another angle produces a MORE solid hit.  And remember, we are talking about a small wedge around the green.

 

It’s going to be different for different players. Now, maybe we find that the average “best” contact is -7.5° or something… but how wide that bell curve is remains to be seen.

 

Just now, CasualLie said:

There are many ways to generate friction, we see it every week on Tour.

 

I don’t think that’s quite right: we have the spin loft mountain, we know solid contact (or even slightly toe or thin contact can help), clean contact, speed increases spin… etc.

 

People hit higher spinners, lower spinners, shots that stop with trajectory, shots that release and roll out… etc. But we know how to generate friction and spin.

[MPStrat]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

Joe maintains that it increases the chances of a solid hit. @Brian Manzella doesn’t believe that to be true. That’s all it boils down to.

Ya and by solid hit I believe he Joe means high quality friction.

 

Based on the other video I believe the other difference they have is that Brian doesn’t seem to think that you need to launch the ball sub 30 to be among the elite pitchers of the ball. He can correct me if that’s wrong.

[virtuoso]

37 minutes ago, CasualLie said:

Given Brian's body of knowledge / expertise, it's practically a given he will show solid hits don't require being 10* down.  But that's not all at stake, is it?  Mayo positioned it as 10* giving you a MORE solid hit, so it will be interesting to see if another angle produces a MORE solid hit.  And remember, we are talking about a small wedge around the green.

 

Inevitably, the next "chapter" of this debate will for better or worse (mostly worse) will center around the definition of "more solid".  🤪

 

And for this type of shot, is "more solid" really what matters.  Clearly, as Brian was debating in the video, it's friction that matters.  There are many ways to generate friction, we see it every week on Tour.  And we have seen less attack angles plus friction generate plenty of spin.  Are those shots "more solid"?  I don't know.  Don't care.  What I care about is, given the situation at hand - lie, distance, how much carry/roll, etc... - can I produce a reasonably predictable outcome? 

 

All short wedge shots, unless sitting on top of Kikuyu, are struck below the cg anyway, so they are all un-solid.

[MonteScheinblum]

I can hit the shot both ways….steep and shallow.  I mostly teach the shallow way because I have thought it was easier, but I’m open.

 

IMO, this debate is no different from daw versus fade.

 

You have many instructors who teach everyone to draw it, because in their words, a fade is a flawed shot.  You have a lesser number say they teach everyone to fade it because a draw requires too much timing.

 

Both shots are viable and I teach golfers to move and swing as efficiently as they are capable and hit it solid…..and whatever it produces that’s what I help them hit.

 

I have taught some players the steep way in the past, because they couldn’t hit it the shallow way.  There are general guidelines you teach off,, but you have to help people find the easiest way for THEM.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, MPStrat said:

Ya and by solid hit I believe he Joe means high quality friction.

 

Nah, because he knows spin loft being 55° could be pointed anywhere and you’d get “high quality friction.” Which was @Brian Manzella’s first point (to which Joe agreed… because it’s just a fact).

[MPStrat]

40 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Nah, because he knows spin loft being 55° could be pointed anywhere and you’d get “high quality friction.” Which was @Brian Manzella’s first point (to which Joe agreed… because it’s just a fact).

Joe didn’t say you can’t point the same 55 spin loft anywhere and get the same friction. I think we all heard him say you could.

 

He believes that the steeper method gives you a better chance to achieve the contact necessary to generate high quality friction. I certainly wouldn’t call it “solid” contact. 

[Hawkeye77]

16 hours ago, Brian Manzella said:

I've been working on a comprehensive video all week. Should be finished tomorrow. 

 

When Joe was looking for everyone to agree with him on the 10°+ down increased the chance for solid hit (in that clip posted above), NOBODY said a peep. Because practically nobody agrees with that.

 

Too risky a move to claim "more solid shots"....

Let us know when it is watchable.

[starsail85]

My low point control is far more precise when I play the ball back and go left in the backswing  

 

all this removal of “steepening elements” from the last 15-20 years of chipping instruction did me no help whatsoever 

 

 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, MPStrat said:

Joe didn’t say you can’t point the same 55 spin loft anywhere and get the same friction. I think we all heard him say you could.

 

He believes that the steeper method gives you a better chance to achieve the contact necessary to generate high quality friction. I certainly wouldn’t call it “solid” contact. 

:sigh:

 

I didn’t say he did. Or didn’t. Only that he agreed 55° is what you need for spin. It can be pointed anywhere.

 

Brian disagrees you need -10° to get good contact. As in not flubbing it. Then you stepped in to try to call “good contact” “high quality friction.” It’s not that. For “high-quality friction” you need the right spin loft and good contact.

 

They agree on the former. Joe thinks -12° increases the odds of good contact. Brian doesn’t. That’s it.

[MPStrat]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

:sigh:

 

I didn’t say he did. Or didn’t. Only that he agreed 55° is what you need for spin. It can be pointed anywhere.

 

Brian disagrees you need -10° to get good contact. As in not flubbing it. Then you stepped in to try to call “good contact” “high quality friction.” It’s not that. For “high-quality friction” you need the right spin loft and good contact.

 

They agree on the former. Joe thinks -12° increases the odds of good contact. Brian doesn’t. That’s it.

 

I “stepped in” 😂 

 

You are something else. 
 

Thumbs up on you changing your wording from solid to good.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

I “stepped in” 😂 

 

You are something else. 
 

Thumbs up on you changing your wording from solid to good.

And rather than continue in good faith you distract, go personal, and cite “solid/good” as if I’m not using them interchangeably.

 

It’s not about friction. It’s about contact.

[MPStrat]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

.It’s not about friction. It’s about contact.

Giving the golfer the best chance to generate friction is the goal. Who thinks quality friction can be generated if you duff it? 
 

I already articulated my point as clear as possible l to clear up any confusion you may have had with what I meant in my original post. I wasn’t disagreeing with you. Apparently you don’t find that acceptable and would prefer to disregard my explanation and keep gnawing about my original post that was unclear to you.

 

8 hours ago, MPStrat said:

He believes that the steeper method gives you a better chance to achieve the contact necessary to generate high quality friction. I certainly wouldn’t call it “solid” contact. 

Thats it.  
 

People are getting real bored. 

[hackerboy]

Having played grainy Bermuda in Florida and now Hawaii, I can say I enjoy the vicarious experience of watching several of the best players in the world chunk uphill into the grain chips and pitches every January in Kapalua (15th hole best spot to watch clubs being thrown). Sometimes they chunk and are tapping down the divot only to see the ball roll back near it (and get penalized like Camilo). The bounce is not always your friend when you don’t hit the ball first. Downgrain different  story much of the time. Many ways to skin a cat or get skinned. 

[Golfbeat]

I always thought a long flat spot using the bounce was the most forgiving. We hackers don't need all that friggin friction, we just don't want to chunk it or blade it.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, MPStrat said:

Giving the golfer the best chance to generate friction is the goal. Who thinks quality friction can be generated if you duff it?

 

It's not just about friction. "Solid contact" results in many things beyond "high quality friction," and there are plenty of shots where you want "solid (or even good) contact" without "high quality friction" (less spin).

[Golfbeat]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2-NAfNRE8D/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

 

[Hawkeye77]

24 minutes ago, Golfbeat said:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2-NAfNRE8D/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

 

Mayo studying a bruise on his ankle from poor contact. 

[GungHoGolf]

Potentially relevant to this thread:

 

1st round at Riv, Hovland’s strokes gained around the green was second to last. Today through 15 he’s 7th from last.

 

[iacas]

46 minutes ago, GungHoGolf said:

Potentially relevant to this thread:

 

1st round at Riv, Hovland’s strokes gained around the green was second to last. Today through 15 he’s 7th from last.

 

SG:ATG is a weird stat because… if you miss a lot of greens, you have more opportunities to gain strokes ATG.

 

Not saying that's what happened here, just… it's not like it's "strokes gained per missed green" (an average). It's additive. For putting, everyone has about 18 chances to gain/lose strokes. For driving, 14. For approaches, 12-15 or so.

[PracticeSwinger]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

SG:ATG is a weird stat because… if you miss a lot of greens, you have more opportunities to gain strokes ATG.

 

Not saying that's what happened here, just… it's not like it's "strokes gained per missed green" (an average). It's additive. For putting, everyone has about 18 chances to gain/lose strokes. For driving, 14. For approaches, 12-15 or so.

Like any SG stats, it’s additive but you can be adding ‘more negative values’ if you’re a bad short game player compared to your peers… whether you flip a coin once or 50 times, you have the same probability of having more heads than tails… that’s the whole idea of SG.

 

Now can you judge a players overall ability in a certain area on a few strokes, with those SG figures?… surely not, long run and law of large numbers

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Varry_Hardon said:

Like any SG stats, it’s additive but you can be adding ‘more negative values’ if you’re a bad short game player compared to your peers… whether you flip a coin once or 50 times, you have the same probability of having more heads than tails… that’s the whole idea of SG.

 

Now can you judge a players overall ability in a certain area on a few strokes, with those SG figures?… surely not, long run and law of large numbers

It’s not really like the others because players get very different chances as I said.

 

And yes, of course it could be negative. Two rounds is a small sample size.

[MonteScheinblum]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

It’s not really like the others because players get very different chances as I said.

 

And yes, of course it could be negative. Two rounds is a small sample size.

The guy leading the tour in driving accuracy has stretches of <50%.

 

Steph Curry has gone 0-9 from 3.

 

Ams seeing success with random feels and not immediate success with likely helpful ideas on small sample sizes is very high in the list for reasons they don’t improve.

 

”25 handicap comes up to me and says,”Butch, I hit a small bucket after our lesson yesterday and I’m still slicing.””

[CasualLie]

12 hours ago, Varry_Hardon said:

Like any SG stats, it’s additive but you can be adding ‘more negative values’ if you’re a bad short game player compared to your peers… whether you flip a coin once or 50 times, you have the same probability of having more heads than tails… that’s the whole idea of SG.

 

Now can you judge a players overall ability in a certain area on a few strokes, with those SG figures?… surely not, long run and law of large numbers

Well…kind of.  There's a 51% chance of landing the coin on the same side it started.  I'm just saying...
 

Back to regular programming.  Judging by the IG posts, Mayo sure is one of the most sensitive instructors out there.

[vernon]

For over thirty years I played the ball back in my stance and hit down steeply and was pretty good at it.

 

Then a few years back I attended one of Monte's clinics in Kansas City and learned the "use the bounce" method which completely transformed my short game for the better.

 

That being said there's still times that I play the ball back and hit down steeply just nowhere nearly as often but different circumstances call for different shots and thanks to Monte i have the ability to hit a variety of them.

 

Glad I didn't have to know the angle of attack and spin loft though........

 

 

[GungHoGolf]

On 2/16/2024 at 5:29 PM, GungHoGolf said:

Potentially relevant to this thread:

 

1st round at Riv, Hovland’s strokes gained around the green was second to last. Today through 15 he’s 7th from last.

 

 

Also relevant: in Mackenzie Hughes’ walk-and-talk in today’s final round of the Genesis, they asked him about his stellar performance around the green (virtually tied with Scottie for most SG ARG for the event), and he said his biggest key was keeping his AoA as shallow as he could when pitching and chipping off the kikuyu grass. Wanted no part of the leading edge.

 

[Nels55]

There is a lot to digest in this thread.  
 

I was taught to chip with the ball back in my stance with a sand wedge 40 years ago.  I have used that shot ever since mostly with my lob wedge since I put one in my bag.  
 

One thing I have occasionally gone back and forth on is the idea of using less loft to chip a low shot with low spin when appropriate.  Less loft with ball in the middle of the stance is a much safer shot with less chance of chunking or skulling the shot.   
 

It is the idea of getting the ball rolling as quickly as possible which I have seen taught a number of times and I believe that some high level players do that?  

Anyway is the idea of using less lofted clubs to hit low spin chips and pitches a totally separate issue from this debate?