Anyone else get way worse after using DECADE?

[airjammer]

48 minutes ago, kiawah said:

Yep, my outlook is very similar. I think I do have my own system but it doesn't require any kind of extra work to figure out the best path forward. Having a go-to shape is certainly ideal, and I know exactly how I would play all of my shots from a driving range lie in the fairway, but trying to make yourself do the same thing over and over again just for the sake of consistency did not help. Now I just try to play the shot that is demanded of me on each swing that will warrant the best results. My path is very neutral usually around 0 but can get to -1.5 or around positive 2 on some days so it is not hard for me to move it one way or the other with a couple basic setup changes. 

 

My putting has gotten much better since I stopped thinking about anything other than lining my ball up and just rolling it. I don't care if I make it or miss it as long as I just rolled the ball on the line I wanted to. I also don't even think about speed. I am so much better just judging it with my eyes and making the most natural stroke. DECADE really made it so hard to trust myself and do things subconsciously. It felt like everything became so manual and that I was thinking my way through every part of the game instead of just reacting. I already think plenty without the system. The last thing I need is to let myself get bogged down by even more crap. 

I’ve never agreed with the speed over line thinking. I understand the logic and the math behind it and maybe that’s because I’ve typically played on very flat greens most of my life.

 

Imo, if you play typically very flat greens then line is way more important because there isn’t enough break to move the ball back to the hole if missed on the high side but hit a but soft. 
 

WhenI read a putt my mind picks the speed automatically when I see the “line” and ai would say historically for me proper speed is way easier for me to hit than hitting my line exactly. 

[SNIPERBBB]

8 minutes ago, kiawah said:

My line of thinking is that I am going to make sure to give myself a wedge or short iron from the fairway as often as I can. Once I have a wedge in hand, I no longer care about getting any more aggressive. This strategy comes into play predominantly on holes shorter than 420 yards, and on holes longer than that I am by and large always hitting driver. But I find that once I have that wedge, it's no longer worth it for me to bite off more of the hole. If I can't regularly hit the green from 130, then I have a lot of work to do regardless. I could really get into the weeds about this, but I don't think it's all that necessary. I just think that there is a subjective difficulty to certain shots and everyone is different. I can hit fairways all day with my 3 and 7 wood, so I don't see much reason to hit a driver that puts the ball in jeopardy a bit more when I can regularly get myself a good scoring opportunity. Could I be gaining some fraction of a shot if I belt a driver down the middle? Yes. Knowing what I know about myself and my game (a decent bit), is it worth it for ME to go chase down that fraction of a shot when I don't feel that I have to? Not in my experience.

Maybe it's not something you practice but the farther you push the ball down the fairway to the green, you just have better options to make birdie with a wedge. When you lay back even with a wedge your pretty much limited to hitting the high shot into the green.  Which is fine if you're greens are fairly receptive and you've got pinpoint distance control.  I know I feel a lot more confident in getting one close if I can hit shots with a wedge that I can get to release and run to the hole vs the one hop and stop shots, or spin it back shots.

[gators78]

8 minutes ago, kiawah said:

I wouldn't argue that I'm better from 180 than 140, and I think I am usually about as good with my 3 wood and my driver, but I can definitely count on my 3 wood to turn over when I want it to more so than the driver. My philosophy is a bit different. In short, I am just trying to get myself a wedge, and I will just hit the safest club that still guarantees (or close to guarantees) me a wedge shot from a good position. 

 

My line of thinking is that I am going to make sure to give myself a wedge or short iron from the fairway as often as I can. Once I have a wedge in hand, I no longer care about getting any more aggressive. This strategy comes into play predominantly on holes shorter than 420 yards, and on holes longer than that I am by and large always hitting driver. But I find that once I have that wedge, it's no longer worth it for me to bite off more of the hole. If I can't regularly hit the green from 130, then I have a lot of work to do regardless. I could really get into the weeds about this, but I don't think it's all that necessary. I just think that there is a subjective difficulty to certain shots and everyone is different. I can hit fairways all day with my 3 and 7 wood, so I don't see much reason to hit a driver that puts the ball in jeopardy a bit more when I can regularly get myself a good scoring opportunity. Could I be gaining some fraction of a shot if I belt a driver down the middle? Yes. Knowing what I know about myself and my game (a decent bit), is it worth it for ME to go chase down that fraction of a shot when I don't feel that I have to? Not in my experience.

 

Over-DECADEd is probably the best way to describe it. I will also say that trying to learn the system while playing under a lot of stress and pressure in college might not have made for the best scenario in which to learn and implement it. I agree about the -1/+1 system around the greens, but it's hard to do that kind of prep thoughtfully/in earnest for EVERY single round you play. I have a very steadfast commitment to putting in the work and practicing/taking care of the details, but a system that requires that level of thoroughness just required a lot of thinking and it felt like I was at a major disadvantage if I simply didn't have time to go through and prep for all of that stuff before every given round. At the end of the day, I think one thing that rings true for most about this funny game is that if you think that something will help you, it probably will. I think that the reverse is likely true, too. 

 

Thanks for taking the time to participate in this little discussion. I always really enjoy talking about course management and mental game stuff, I think it is often overlooked by much of the "Help me turn my 13 degrees out to in move into a shallow george gankas pivot" thread crowd. 

 

 

 

Yea I mean the rebuttal is right there in your answer. Let’s say you’re giving up 0.3 shots on those holes you lay back. There are probably 3-5 holes in a round where those start stacking. Now you’re up to 1.5 strokes back per round. Now multiply that over 3 tournament rounds. You’re already 3 to 4.5 shots back of average. Considering this is college golf where some guys just hit it forever and have a huge advantage with the driver (esp if you’re hitting it 265), you could be 7-8 shots back before the tournament event starts. That puts a ton of pressure on your putting and iron game. 

[kiawah]

2 minutes ago, naval2006 said:

I don't know DECADE in depth but I think it's a successful method that per se won't ruin your golf.  And true, you don't need to stick to it 100%, especially at our level.  But much of what I've seen from this guy is to do with conservative golf and avoiding bit time trouble.  I agree it's a way of playing that a few talented explosive players may not adhere to, but in general it works fine for most players.  

 

I know a kid who is into DECADE and we sometimes play together.  He explains some of it to me and the stuff he tells me does make a lot of sense.  It's like Bob Rotella  fully developed into a method to leave no room for hesitation when you're playing.    

My issue is that I was already a fairly conservative scratch player. DECADE made me feel like I had to aim for the fairway run-up short of every green and hope it bounces on. I think it might work for people who are too flag-happy, but I was never one of those. 

 

I can see where you would think it leaves you no room for hesitation, but at the end of the day, the system is built on using the length of the flagstick to eyeball where you're supposed to aim in relation to the edges of the green. But in a tournament when you're under the gun just looking off into the distance asking yourself "is that really two flagsticks from the edge?" or "where was that spot again" or "are these pins shorter than the ones I'm used to looking at," it created a lot of hesitation for me. I think simultaneously being aware of how important committing to every shot is while using a very complicated method of determining what shot I was committing to made things harder than they needed to be for me. If it works for you, more power to you. 

[kiawah]

2 minutes ago, gators78 said:

 

Yea I mean the rebuttal is right there in your answer. Let’s say you’re giving up 0.3 shots on those holes you lay back. There are probably 3-5 holes in a round where those start stacking. Now you’re up to 1.5 strokes back per round. Now multiply that over 3 tournament rounds. You’re already 3 to 4.5 shots back of average. Considering this is college golf where some guys just hit it forever and have a huge advantage with the driver (esp if you’re hitting it 265), you could be 7-8 shots back before the tournament event starts. That puts a ton of pressure on your putting and iron game. 

Fair point, but here is my DECADE rebuttal.

 

Your rebuttal is built on the implication that I am going to hit the fairway to the spot 0.3 shots better with my driver. If I knew for a fact that I was going to do that, this wouldn't be a discussion and I would hit the driver. But the driver has a larger shot pattern. I believe Fawcett estimates that the best drivers in the world have a shot pattern about 70 yards wide. So it could easily wind up in the rough.

 

Fawcett states that the rough costs 0.25 strokes per shot. If that drive isn't terrific, I would only gain 0.05 shots on my layup that reliably finds the fairway. Not to mention, the drive would end up closer to its carry distance since it does not roll out as far in the rough. I approximate that the strokes gained becomes a total wash. Beyond that, Scott says that targets must be more conservative from the rough, eliminating the advantage of the drive altogether. Not to mention the unquantifiable cost of hitting bad drives repeatedly and losing confidence in an important club that did not need to be hit. 

 

Also, in my college tournaments, I DECADEd and hit driver almost EXCLUSIVELY for two years and my scores rarely counted. It wasn't until I started hitting way fewer drivers that my average went wayyy down. 

[kiawah]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

I feel you on that.  That is a tough one for me too.  Distance is not a problem for me off the tee, but direction is.  My irons are surprisingly good for someone who is as wild as I am off the tee.

 

So, I always felt I scored better by staying in the fairway at the cost of a longer approach, especially when "longer" was maybe the difference between 50 yards and 115 yards.  But the data does say that all skill levels of golfers hit the ball closer to the target when they are closer (at the ranges mentioned).

 

I think there are always specific circumstances that "the rules" may not apply to.  And I do think you have a point about being confident in your decision as that impacts how the shot comes off.

I love competition and tournaments, and to me, confidence is more important than the vast majority of these marginal shots. I can't quantify it, but all of this optimal strategy jargon was meaningless because I was constantly feeling a bit uneasy about what I was doing and why I was doing it. That kind of hesitation ended up being costly to me and made me feel bad about myself when I couldn't make it work. I'm willing to concede that it might be a great system for the vast majority of players, but I am having more fun and shooting scores that make me happy doing things my way, and I am really satisfied with my game since I have moved on from it. I dunno. Could just be the idea of owning your game and being able to make decisions yourself is empowering in a way that using Scott's formula isn't. But as I have been saying, if you use it and like it, great. I have nothing against anyone who likes it and I think the arithmetic behind it is quite viable. But it's just not how I end up putting up the best scores. 

[mstuewe]

38 minutes ago, bcflyguy1 said:

I see the merits of his system and have found it helpful, but his narcissistic tendencies do him zero good. He does have the data and evidence on his side, particularly in his disagreements with the boujee faux architecture snob/Tron Carter (iT's AlL aBoUt pLaYiNg AnGlEs) types, but he can't be satisfied to just let the data win the debate. You being blocked for having the audacity to express that you weren't helped much is just another brick in the wall.

 

Kind of a catch-22.  odds are that a guy who comes up with a math based system for course management is going to be short with people.  call it autistic, spectrumy, whatever you want, it sort of is what it is.

 

 

[bcflyguy1]

3 minutes ago, mstuewe said:

 

Kind of a catch-22.  odds are that a guy who comes up with a math based system for course management is going to be short with people.  call it autistic, spectrumy, whatever you want, it sort of is what it is.

 

 

To put it diplomatically, he 100% has what I sometimes call "a touch of the 'tism."

 

But the reality is there's something much more malignant than that at play. His personal life leaves pretty large clues, sadly.

 

Compare his conduct with someone like Joe Mayo. Joe is a bit of an odd duck as well, but he can still carry on a respectful yet disagreeable discourse.

Edited June 25 by bcflyguy1

[mstuewe]

17 minutes ago, kiawah said:

Fair point, but here is my DECADE rebuttal.

 

Your rebuttal is built on the implication that I am going to hit the fairway to the spot 0.3 shots better with my driver. If I knew for a fact that I was going to do that, this wouldn't be a discussion and I would hit the driver. But the driver has a larger shot pattern. I believe Fawcett estimates that the best drivers in the world have a shot pattern about 70 yards wide. So it could easily wind up in the rough.

 

Fawcett states that the rough costs 0.25 strokes per shot. If that drive isn't terrific, I would only gain 0.05 shots on my layup that reliably finds the fairway. Not to mention, the drive would end up closer to its carry distance since it does not roll out as far in the rough. I approximate that the strokes gained becomes a total wash. Beyond that, Scott says that targets must be more conservative from the rough, eliminating the advantage of the drive altogether. Not to mention the unquantifiable cost of hitting bad drives repeatedly and losing confidence in an important club that did not need to be hit. 

 

Also, in my college tournaments, I DECADEd and hit driver almost EXCLUSIVELY for two years and my scores rarely counted. It wasn't until I started hitting way fewer drivers that my average went wayyy down. 

 

The rebuttal to the rebuttal is that your 3 wood is not guaranteed to find the fairway 100% of the time.  So you have to factor in those times where you lay back with 3 wood and still find the rough. Thats what I was saying earlier, if your 3 wood truly is that much more accurate than your driver that can find the fairway so consistently, then you are either a statistical anomaly or you have a really crappy driver that needs to be replaced.

 

[kiawah]

Just now, mstuewe said:

 

The rebuttal to the rebuttal is that your 3 wood is not guaranteed to find the fairway 100% of the time.  So you have to factor in those times where you lay back with 3 wood and still find the rough. Thats what I was saying earlier, if your 3 wood truly is that much more accurate than your driver that can find the fairway so consistently, then you are either a statistical anomaly or you have a really crappy driver that needs to be replaced.

 

I could just be recency biasing here but I am rarely missing with my 3 wood and almost never missing with my 7 wood. I think I'm around 57% FIR with driver, 65ish with 3 wood, and the 7 wood I haven't tracked as closely but it really might be over 70. Best club in my bag easily. 

[gators78]

10 minutes ago, kiawah said:

Fair point, but here is my DECADE rebuttal.

 

Your rebuttal is built on the implication that I am going to hit the fairway to the spot 0.3 shots better with my driver. If I knew for a fact that I was going to do that, this wouldn't be a discussion and I would hit the driver. But the driver has a larger shot pattern. I believe Fawcett estimates that the best drivers in the world have a shot pattern about 70 yards wide. So it could easily wind up in the rough.

 

Fawcett states that the rough costs 0.25 strokes per shot. If that drive isn't terrific, I would only gain 0.05 shots on my layup that reliably finds the fairway. Not to mention, the drive would end up closer to its carry distance since it does not roll out as far in the rough. I approximate that the strokes gained becomes a total wash. Beyond that, Scott says that targets must be more conservative from the rough, eliminating the advantage of the drive altogether. Not to mention the unquantifiable cost of hitting bad drives repeatedly and losing confidence in an important club that did not need to be hit. 

 

Also, in my college tournaments, I DECADEd and hit driver almost EXCLUSIVELY for two years and my scores rarely counted. It wasn't until I started hitting way fewer drivers that my average went wayyy down. 

 

First I’ll just say from reading your posts if you’re not into it, that’s A-OK. I’d just offer there might be some concepts that could help your scores and ultimately it’s up to you for figuring out what works best.  

 

The 0.25 penalty for the rough is on a like-for-like comparison of the same yardage. You’re not only gaining 0.05 when you have a wedge in the rough vs. say an 8 iron in the fairway, you’re inherently gaining more because of the shorter club. There’s also the “layup bias” where you’re assuming you’ll always hit the fairway with a shorter club, or always miss the fairway with a driver, which is absolutely not the case. If you hit 7 wood and miss it in the rough, now you’re stacking disadvantages. 

 

I’d also add from your posts if your driver is that wild, given the yardages you posted, then there might be something fundamental that needs worked through, especially if the path was only +/- 1.5*. 265 carry would probably put you in the 105-110mph range, so it sounds like the face is moving all over to get wider than a 70 yard cone with a +/- 1.5 path. This would also support the argument you’re not as accurate with a 3 wood as you think.

[mstuewe]

Just now, kiawah said:

I could just be recency biasing here but I am rarely missing with my 3 wood and almost never missing with my 7 wood. I think I'm around 57% FIR with driver, 65ish with 3 wood, and the 7 wood I haven't tracked as closely but it really might be over 70. Best club in my bag easily. 

 

so thats 8 fairways per round with driver and 9 fairways per round with 3 wood.  lets say you hit your driver 30 yards further than 3 wood, thats about 1/10th of a shot per hole you'd be sacrificing with 3 wood, or 1.4 shots per round.  driver finds the rough 1 more time per round than 3 wood, so that brings the delta down to 1.05.

 

thats assuming everything else is equal, exclusively using those clubs.  the real world difference will be much smaller than 1.05 because there are holes with trouble where driver makes absolutely no sense and others where its so wide open that 3 wood makes no sense.  in the end, we aren't talking about a huge variance, but over the course of the season it adds up.

[mstuewe]

one area I think Decade underplays is trees.  I dont understand why the decision tree doesn't factor in trees.  here's a snippet.  to me, a cluster of trees is almost as bad as a penalty stroke hazard when it means you likely are pitching out.  sure you can advance it, but being in the trees usually means par at best, bogey is likely.  theres a hole at my home course where there are trees left, OB way left, and a bunker right where my driver usually lands.  3 wood accuracy might help here to avoid going left into the trees and staying short of the bunker.  for me, since im a goober I just aim for the bunker because I never hit it straight anyway...but I think tree trouble is underplayed in the DECADE strategy.

 

 

@KGrinols please dont make a pun about decision trees not including trees.

 

 

 

[kiawah]

40 minutes ago, gators78 said:

 

First I’ll just say from reading your posts if you’re not into it, that’s A-OK. I’d just offer there might be some concepts that could help your scores and ultimately it’s up to you for figuring out what works best.  

 

The 0.25 penalty for the rough is on a like-for-like comparison of the same yardage. You’re not only gaining 0.05 when you have a wedge in the rough vs. say an 8 iron in the fairway, you’re inherently gaining more because of the shorter club. There’s also the “layup bias” where you’re assuming you’ll always hit the fairway with a shorter club, or always miss the fairway with a driver, which is absolutely not the case. If you hit 7 wood and miss it in the rough, now you’re stacking disadvantages. 

 

I’d also add from your posts if your driver is that wild, given the yardages you posted, then there might be something fundamental that needs worked through, especially if the path was only +/- 1.5*. 265 carry would probably put you in the 105-110mph range, so it sounds like the face is moving all over to get wider than a 70 yard cone with a +/- 1.5 path. This would also support the argument you’re not as accurate with a 3 wood as you think.

I knew my argument made way too much sense in my head to be statistically sound 😂

But anyway, here are my strokes gained numbers since I started tracking them again in December. I’ve logged basically every round other than a couple, and both of those rounds were quite good and I didn’t wanna pull my phone out to enter stats, so if anything they would probably skew a fraction better in at least a couple of the areas listed. I’ll try to dig a couple up from when I was DECADEing for comparison. Make of these whatever you will. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, kiawah said:

Maybe it isn't about the "worst possible outcome." But I do think it was just an overwhelming amount of information for me. I process things really quickly in most cases but it just filled my head with so much stuff that it was a case of paralysis by analysis.

 

It is just: "There's a pond to the left, so I'm gonna favor the right, even if that puts some of my shots in the right rough."

 

You can still visualize and hit whatever shot you want to that target… just… the target is to the right some amount.

 

2 hours ago, kiawah said:

I am breaking par around once every 5 or 6 18 hole rounds and even more frequently in my 9 hole rounds this year. I'm not following his system at all. All I am trying to do is hit the max number of fairways and greens and go after the pins it won't hurt me to attack. That's it and that's all.

 

That's… not all that different from how that's applied.

 

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

It takes the SG stuff from Broadie and creates a practical application for golfers

 

To be clear… ours came out a few weeks after ESC. We were glad to stick in some footnotes to some supporting data, but a lot of the stuff was built on our tests and stats, not using Mark's info. I can't say the same for Scott. 😉 

 

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

The shading is helpful but I am not a strict practitioner of it.  But even if I were I wouldn't think it would rise to the level of clouding my mind with equations.  I rather think it a guiding principle that is just almost unconsciously guiding my decision making.

 

Yes, we like the "shading" because it's not paint-by-numbers, let-me-look-at-my-card, etc. stuff. And it leaves room for how you feel about a shot, how you're playing that day, etc. IMO it's less mentally taxing.

 

2 hours ago, kiawah said:

DECADE really made it so hard to trust myself and do things subconsciously.

 

I don't understand what you were trying to do with DECADE on the greens. It's not something you "do" on the greens. It just tells you that statistically:

• You're better off just trying to roll the ball the distance of the hole outside of about 25 feet (less for worse players, maybe out to 30' for good players).
• You're better off making sure you get the ball to the hole inside of about 10' as your distance control will rarely have you hitting it to 4'+ from that short of a distance.

It's not something you "do" on the putting green, it's just a mindset shift of sorts. We've said the same things, Mark Broadie has said the same things… it's just sensical.

 

1 hour ago, airjammer said:

I’ve never agreed with the speed over line thinking.

…

When I read a putt my mind picks the speed automatically

 

You've never agreed to it… because you "pick the speed automatically."

 

I never worry about the speed either, because I have good speed control, but absolutely the speed matters more than the line outside of about 20' or so.

 

1 hour ago, kiawah said:

My issue is that I was already a fairly conservative scratch player. DECADE made me feel like I had to aim for the fairway run-up short of every green and hope it bounces on.

 

Then… you were doing it wrong? That's not a thing.

[kiawah]

40 minutes ago, mstuewe said:

one area I think Decade underplays is trees.  I dont understand why the decision tree doesn't factor in trees.  here's a snippet.  to me, a cluster of trees is almost as bad as a penalty stroke hazard when it means you likely are pitching out.  sure you can advance it, but being in the trees usually means par at best, bogey is likely.  theres a hole at my home course where there are trees left, OB way left, and a bunker right where my driver usually lands.  3 wood accuracy might help here to avoid going left into the trees and staying short of the bunker.  for me, since im a goober I just aim for the bunker because I never hit it straight anyway...but I think tree trouble is underplayed in the DECADE strategy.

 

 

@KGrinols please dont make a pun about decision trees not including trees.

 

 

 

This rings true in my experience. 

[kiawah]

2 hours ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Maybe it's not something you practice but the farther you push the ball down the fairway to the green, you just have better options to make birdie with a wedge. When you lay back even with a wedge your pretty much limited to hitting the high shot into the green.  Which is fine if you're greens are fairly receptive and you've got pinpoint distance control.  I know I feel a lot more confident in getting one close if I can hit shots with a wedge that I can get to release and run to the hole vs the one hop and stop shots, or spin it back shots.

I practice my game between 20-100 a lot, at least a few hours a week. The problem at my course is that it is so firm that you have to impart so much speed on those shots to get enough spin on it to stop the ball which makes it easier for me to have 70 yards in on some shots than 20. I hit driver on a 330 yard par 4 on Saturday and had to get up and down on a 30 yard bunker shot that was rock hard and with trouble long. I needed to do something unreal just to get up and down. On Sunday I hit driver again to 25 yards out. I was in line with the center of the green to the very front left pin. I had about 10 feet of room (all downslope) between the bunker short of the green and the pin with the green running away. I would probably have had a better chance at getting the ball to settle somewhere close if I hit it shorter, in all seriousness. I nipped it perfect short of the hole with a new lob wedge and it still rolled away to around 20 feet. 

 

I am a decent wedge player, although it is not the best part of my game. I don't fear wedge shots and have a lot of fun chipping and pitching and imparting spin--the whole nine yards. But some of those shorter shots are so much more difficult than the average # of strokes to hole out would indicate. Especially if you are not approaching from a good angle that gives you a little more margin for error. I don't go chasing certain angles but on certain wedge shots around my course it is next to impossible to get a ball close on such firm putting surfaces if you are coming in from  a bad angle. Probably the exception more than the rule, but that's kind of what I'm getting at with this entire thread. Some shots are easier than the strokes gained would imply. Others are harder than the strokes gained imply. I just don't think the raw data tells the whole story from situation to situation. 

 

Edit: to address your point more directly, I simply do not have many opportunities to run a wedge up landing it short of the flag. I have to deal with a ton of false fronts on my course or tucked front pins right by a bunker. Rarely any front or middle pins that have flat fairway leadups and I typically take advantage of those. 

Edited June 25 by kiawah

[kiawah]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

It is just: "There's a pond to the left, so I'm gonna favor the right, even if that puts some of my shots in the right rough."

 

You can still visualize and hit whatever shot you want to that target… just… the target is to the right some amount.

 

 

That's… not all that different from how that's applied.

 

 

To be clear… ours came out a few weeks after ESC. We were glad to stick in some footnotes to some supporting data, but a lot of the stuff was built on our tests and stats, not using Mark's info. I can't say the same for Scott. 😉 

 

 

Yes, we like the "shading" because it's not paint-by-numbers, let-me-look-at-my-card, etc. stuff. And it leaves room for how you feel about a shot, how you're playing that day, etc. IMO it's less mentally taxing.

 

 

I don't understand what you were trying to do with DECADE on the greens. It's not something you "do" on the greens. It just tells you that statistically:

• You're better off just trying to roll the ball the distance of the hole outside of about 25 feet (less for worse players, maybe out to 30' for good players).
• You're better off making sure you get the ball to the hole inside of about 10' as your distance control will rarely have you hitting it to 4'+ from that short of a distance.

It's not something you "do" on the putting green, it's just a mindset shift of sorts. We've said the same things, Mark Broadie has said the same things… it's just sensical.

 

 

You've never agreed to it… because you "pick the speed automatically."

 

I never worry about the speed either, because I have good speed control, but absolutely the speed matters more than the line outside of about 20' or so.

 

 

Then… you were doing it wrong? That's not a thing.

To respond: 

 

You're correct in your assessment of target selection off the tee. I already try to err on the side of the course opposite of the trouble. Not a revolutionary concept to me. My problem with the DECADE system is that it rarely had a good way to account for things that weren't explicitly considered penalty stroke hazards/ob like trees or thick rough that could end up being penal in its own way. 

 

Yes, there is a strong chance I was not applying the system correctly at times, but on courses with small greens and bad misses long, there didn't seem to be many better ways to "DECADE" approach shots into those greens per Scott's firm greens conditions video. If you have to move your shot pattern shorter to account for large bounces into greens, then yes, I think it might be a thing to just end up short in the fairway just off the front edge many times. 

 

Yes, you're right that what I am doing now is not all that different from DECADE. Hence my belief that it probably wasn't necessary/beneficial for me to use it in the first place. It caused a good deal of second guessing and took a toll on me mentally in being so deliberate to settle on a target not markedly different from the one I'd have picked in less than 10 seconds. I'd like to think I have a decent golf IQ and a lot of the steps in the process felt like beating a dead horse and wondering if I did every step properly. 

 

With regard to what I was "doing" on the putting green, the "stop trying to make putts" idea wasn't a very good one. 

 

I like that your system is less paint by numbers and leaves room for how you feel about a shot and situational factors. That is a great idea. And something that Scott is completely dismissive of if it doesn't line up with Lou Stagner's math. From what I can tell, it was always more Stagner's brainchild with regards to the data, anyway. 

 

Look, I just didn't get on with the system, and I'm not trying to bash it. I know it works for many. That isn't the point. I was just wondering if anyone else is over all of the analytic mumbo jumbo. 

 

 

 

[SNIPERBBB]

2 hours ago, kiawah said:

 

Edit: to address your point more directly, I simply do not have many opportunities to run a wedge up landing it short of the flag. I have to deal with a ton of false fronts on my course or tucked front pins right by a bunker. Rarely any front or middle pins that have flat fairway leadups and I typically take advantage of those. 

I'm not talking about landing it short of the green and running it up, which is nice when you can do it but landing it on the front or middle of the green and let it release towards the flag. 

[Glock917]

If it's your home course that you have played hundreds? or even more times, I don't think a scratch player is going to shoot anything substantially better using a game management system like decade.

 

You know where you need to place the ball around the course to shoot your best score for your game through trial and error.

 

If it is a newish course, I think decade and things like shotlink would be beneficially since you can see patterns of the score on holes based on where drives are and how far to the pin, etc.

 

Still go to implement those stats with your game at the end of the day. If you dont feel comfortable with it, you can just say Shanks a lot to your scores.

 

[kiawah]

3 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

I'm not talking about landing it short of the green and running it up, which is nice when you can do it but landing it on the front or middle of the green and let it release towards the flag. 

Oh, ok. That makes sense. Yes, I try to do that when possible. My course has recently re-designed Doak greens with about 250 slopes on them per green which sort of limits the effectiveness of running it up at times but I do it whenever I can. 

[iacas]

Just now, kiawah said:

You're correct in your assessment of target selection off the tee. I already try to err on the side of the course opposite of the trouble. Not a revolutionary concept to me. My problem with the DECADE system is that it rarely had a good way to account for things that weren't explicitly considered penalty stroke hazards/ob like trees or thick rough that could end up being penal in its own way.

 

I'd call them a dark shade of grey, but not overly black. And DECADE kinda does: if the trees are really thick, then it's basically going to cost you a penalty, so you treat that similarly as you would a PA or something. Ditto for fescue or something.

 

My point was there's no need to have paralysis by analysis: you're looking at the width of the "relatively safe area" and choosing a line and club based on that.

 

Just now, kiawah said:

Yes, there is a strong chance I was not applying the system correctly at times, but on courses with small greens and bad misses long, there didn't seem to be many better ways to "DECADE" approach shots into those greens per Scott's firm greens conditions video.

 

If you're a near-scratch player, you're just concerned with the point-to-point. You're not bouncing the ball onto the greens.

 

Just now, kiawah said:

With regard to what I was "doing" on the putting green, the "stop trying to make putts" idea wasn't a very good one.

 

I don't think you understood that part well enough: what he's saying (and what I say when I talk to people about it) is that the people who try to "make" 40-footers all too often hit it 4, 5, 6, 7+ feet past because they can't make it if they leave it short.

 

All he's saying, and all I say, is that you should try to hit the 40-footer 40 feet. If it goes in, cool. You're not actively trying to MISS the putt, but that's different than actively trying to guarantee the putt has a chance by hitting it > 40 feet.

 

Just now, kiawah said:

And something that Scott is completely dismissive of if it doesn't line up with Lou Stagner's math. From what I can tell, it was always more Stagner's brainchild with regards to the data, anyway.

 

No. Lou came to it all later than Scott did, and Scott came to it after Dave and I did. Lou in fact worked with us for a bit before he worked with Scott, and hasn't worked with Scott for a few years now, either.

 

Just now, kiawah said:

Look, I just didn't get on with the system, and I'm not trying to bash it. I know it works for many. That isn't the point. I was just wondering if anyone else is over all of the analytic mumbo jumbo.

 

I don't know that you really understood it fully. I agree that it's a bit too hard-and-fast, a bit too paint-by-numbers, and some other not-awesome things. But some of the things you've said don't ring true to me as far as how it's used. There's no paralysis by analysis IMO; if anything there's a bit less thinking. I think you misunderstood the "don't make putts" stuff. I think you misunderstood something if you were thinking it said to bounce the ball onto the greens… etc.

 

A lot can be missed in text, and stuff like this is super-nuanced, so I'm gonna assume we'd have to hash it all out over hours if we actually cared, but since neither of us do… I'll gladly leave it all at that. Good luck in the future.

[Santiago Golf]

I mean the math on the approach shots is super easy

 

If you are 135 yards out and in the fairway ... your target is basically 5% from the edge of the green that the flag is on, then add 5 yards for front and middle pins and back pins minus 0 to 5 yards. 

 

left middle pin 135 in the fairway ... you are trying to hit 140 yard shot and aim (10% of 135 is 13, cut in half is 7) 7 yards from the left edge. Adjust for wind and evaluation

 

 

[Jtgavigan]

2 hours ago, kiawah said:

I think you are dead on in saying it depends on how it is interpreted. To me, what kind of threw me off was when Scott said something like "if you aren't doing all of this on every shot then it will never work because the percentages will always work out over time, etc." So naturally I took all of it as gospel and gave myself no room to make decisions any other way, which may or may not have been flawed, I couldn't really be the one to tell you. 

 

I think you are also dead on in saying that putting is very personal. There are so many different ways to go about it. Now, I am really just focused on getting comfortable and reacting rather than being mechanical or thinking excessively about any aspect of it. 

 

Moving my ball flight around from draw to fade on certain shots comes easier to me than trying to force my "stock" shot on a lot of holes. I don't have to think much about the swing, I just move the ball up in my stance by a ball and closer to me by a ball to cut it and one ball back and further away to draw it. It all comes down to comfort level and I think DECADE just got me so far out of my comfort zone trying to do so many things "optimally" that I lost all of my feel for how to get around the golf course. 

 

I think it's a really well thought out system and it clearly works for lots of people, but it just wasn't making my scores any better and I wasn't enjoying myself all that much on the golf course turning every shot into an equation. I did it for over a year and it never really felt any more intuitive or natural to me. Hence why I started this thread to see if anyone else felt similarly or if I am just an odd duck. 

I get this.

I have found DECADE very helpful for me as it gives me a good idea of where to hit it/not hit it. Even though I am an engineer by degree and run a company that analyzes data, I try not to get too technical about it. I don't have tee sheets when I go play, but if I see a flag tucked against trouble, I know to aim a little farther away and more towards the middle of the green. If I had pin sheets, I would do the math before the round and know where my targets were on every green based on pin placements. I would then know to add or subtract from the yardage I had to flag so I wasn't doing too much math out there. 

The idea of shot patterns is very helpful. Having a stock shot off the tee is advisable in my mind. Seems like the best drivers of the golf ball know what they want to do with it and don't deviate much. If they need to work it, they drop to 3 wood. 

I think it is a workable system and reading through many of your posts on this thread, I can't help but think you weren't overcomplicating it, or at least not doing some up front work (not really sure what info they give you for a college tourney, but if you had pin sheets, the math could be done ahead of time) to make it where you could just go play and not have to think too much about where you needed to hit the ball. It would be all about execution. Realistically, you should have all of your targets off the tee and into greens pretty well known before you stepped on #1 tee.

I do get where you are coming from though. It does make me think it isn't for everyone, even though I personally am a believer, as are many others. 

[Jtgavigan]

3 hours ago, kiawah said:

This rings true in my experience. 

 

Same here - I also agree that sometimes even if no "penalty" is involved, a miss to a certain spot can be penal. 

[kiawah]

14 minutes ago, Santiago Golf said:

I mean the math on the approach shots is super easy

 

If you are 135 yards out and in the fairway ... your target is basically 5% from the edge of the green that the flag is on, then add 5 yards for front and middle pins and back pins minus 0 to 5 yards. 

 

left middle pin 135 in the fairway ... you are trying to hit 140 yard shot and aim (10% of 135 is 13, cut in half is 7) 7 yards from the left edge. Adjust for wind and evaluation

 

 

Yeah, I get that, but I found doing it 30+ times a round exhausting and boring. It didn't really work on any elevated greens where I couldn't figure out where the putting surface stopped and started which always felt debilitating. And you also have to account for all of the modifiers around the green, or else the formula is basically incorrect. It was very interesting, but I found it to be too much thinking and realized there's no way I wanted to play that way for the rest of my life. 

 

Different strokes for different folks. 

[kiawah]

8 minutes ago, Jtgavigan said:

I get this.

I have found DECADE very helpful for me as it gives me a good idea of where to hit it/not hit it. Even though I am an engineer by degree and run a company that analyzes data, I try not to get too technical about it. I don't have tee sheets when I go play, but if I see a flag tucked against trouble, I know to aim a little farther away and more towards the middle of the green. If I had pin sheets, I would do the math before the round and know where my targets were on every green based on pin placements. I would then know to add or subtract from the yardage I had to flag so I wasn't doing too much math out there. 

The idea of shot patterns is very helpful. Having a stock shot off the tee is advisable in my mind. Seems like the best drivers of the golf ball know what they want to do with it and don't deviate much. If they need to work it, they drop to 3 wood. 

I think it is a workable system and reading through many of your posts on this thread, I can't help but think you weren't overcomplicating it, or at least not doing some up front work (not really sure what info they give you for a college tourney, but if you had pin sheets, the math could be done ahead of time) to make it where you could just go play and not have to think too much about where you needed to hit the ball. It would be all about execution. Realistically, you should have all of your targets off the tee and into greens pretty well known before you stepped on #1 tee.

I do get where you are coming from though. It does make me think it isn't for everyone, even though I personally am a believer, as are many others. 

In college we didn't get the pin sheets until we got there the day of, so it wasn't easy to do the prep work in advance. Some bunkers might have been a 2 to certain pins but a -1 to others, etc., so it wasn't really worth it to try and figure it out. I definitely could have overcomplicated it, but only because I wanted to understand how to do it right so badly. It just never clicked for me. The way I played beforehand was clearly good enough to get me to the collegiate level, so I figured it was time to go back. 

 

I think I'm more of an "artist" than a "scientist." I care about the stats and I track my strokes gained metrics but I just think there's a time and place for that kind of thing and for me it's not in the middle of a competitive round. Glad to hear it works for you. It seems like it can really be an asset if the process feels more natural to you. 

[kiawah]

9 minutes ago, Jtgavigan said:

 

Same here - I also agree that sometimes even if no "penalty" is involved, a miss to a certain spot can be penal. 

The logic with tee shots is a bit too black-and-white for me. I don't go chasing angles very much, but I think it is inaccurate to say that the angle you leave yourself doesn't matter at all or isn't worth considering. Also, given the way Scott insists you play a 9/10 shot from the trees (which I actually agree with and still believe), you might as well treat trees as a hazard to some extent. 

[KGrinols]

4 hours ago, mstuewe said:

 

@KGrinols please dont make a pun about decision trees not including trees.

I'm just going with the flow...chart.

[mstuewe]

40 minutes ago, kiawah said:

The logic with tee shots is a bit too black-and-white for me. I don't go chasing angles very much, but I think it is inaccurate to say that the angle you leave yourself doesn't matter at all or isn't worth considering. Also, given the way Scott insists you play a 9/10 shot from the trees (which I actually agree with and still believe), you might as well treat trees as a hazard to some extent. 

 

To me...angles matter and it's really helpful in approaching a green from the proper angle.  Problem is, I am not good enough to chase angles and it's better to be long and in the fairway than miss a fairway because I was trying to aim down the right to approach a left pin.  As a 6 handicap, I know I am not good enough.  Scott's point seems to be that even tour pros aren't good enough.

 

In fairness, Fawcett does account for trees here.  So maybe it just isn't as clear in his driver decision tree as it should be.