Anyone else get way worse after using DECADE?

[mstuewe]

24 minutes ago, KGrinols said:

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

 

[Jtgavigan]

45 minutes ago, kiawah said:

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. 

 

We are all not the same and we sometimes forget that. Interestingly enough, I am very technical with many things I do and do study my golf data, but on the course, I much more go by feel. DECADE brought some structure to a place where I had none. That is why it was probably easy for me to relate to and not overcomplicate it. I didn't want to get into analysis paralysis. If I was playing serious tournament golf, I would probably have some kind of a book with me that had much of the math pre-done, so I could just go play. I have watched Dechambeau play some on YouTube and listened to some of his player/caddy conversations. I could never play that technically. But, having some technical thing to adhere to isn't bad.

Most of DECADE is pretty common sense.

 

I have seen your posts about putting. In taking a quick look at your SG putting, I was surprised and don't understand your rating on 20+ foot putts. Maybe there just isn't enough data yet. But looking at your stats, you are VERY good from 6 feet and in, pretty decent out to 20 feet. I think what Scott gets at with putting is sometimes people get too aggressive on longer putts and leave more meat on the bone than they should. His metric is to leave the ball consistently within 10% of your distance - so 60 foot putt, get it to within 6 feet, 50 footer within 5 feet, etc. Also, many people get pretty aggressive on 15-25 foot putts and ram them by, leaving a longer putt than needed. That is why he harps on speed control. So, it just made me wonder if speed control outside of 20 feet COULD be an issue (maybe not enough data). What is going on there? Looks like you have a legit strength as a short putter. Looks like outside of 20 feet, you 3 putt a lot. So, I am trying to square being a good short putter and having too many 3 putts. That doesn't square. I think if Scott looked at your data, he would say the same thing and say "THIS is why I tell people to quit trying to make putts."    

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, mstuewe said:

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…

 

Nobody is, and they don't generally matter for decent players under most conditions. I gave my speech to the ASGCA at their annual meeting on angles. OT for this topic, but… if there's an "angles" topic somewhere here, I'll check it out.

[Chunkitgood]

When you talk about a statistical approach to any human activity you wade into some deep ontological and epistemological waters.  I never analyzed the basis of this system, either the quality of the data or the inferences (has anybody?), but I suspect when you get to the other shore you will find a misuse of the notion of probability.

 

Ceteris is never paribus on the golf course, as far as I am concerned.  Even among pros how close things come to being equal is very doubtful.  When they go on about how the guys who go for the par five in two score better, you have to assume the guys who didn’t go for it didn’t because they didn’t think they could…and who would know better than them?  Mr. Fawcett?

 

It doesn’t mean that everybody should go for it in two, it just means the better golfers (in this case generally longer hitters) score better.

 

When I watch tv I see the best golfers time and again lay up to a certain distance (when they lay up) and talk about how they do so based on their knowledge of their abilities.  If they listened to people who tell them just to get it as close as they can based on statistics…nobody would be listing to what they said, they would be listening to the winners

 

I see the winners drive the short par fours, go for the par fives in two, and I also see the winners attack the heck out of the pins.  Does this mean I should?  Or you should?  Or that the guy who came in 50th should have?  Of course not.

 

 

[kiawah]

1 hour ago, mstuewe said:

 

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.

I should have clarified. I meant that trees are not part of the decision tree. I actually love the 90% rule from trees, definitely a very helpful aspect of DECADE for sure. But I think it’s a little silly that the decision tee is so big on using penalty hazards as a barometer for where to aim when 9/10 times you’re playing sideways out of the trees which is not super different from taking a penalty stroke with a look at the hole. 
 

The only time I’ll really chase an angle is on a short par 4 with very little trouble or on a layup on a par 5. Daring, I know. But it hasn’t burned me too bad yet. 

Edited June 25 by kiawah

[kiawah]

7 minutes ago, Chunkitgood said:

When you talk about a statistical approach to any human activity you wade into some deep ontological and epistemological waters.  I never analyzed the basis of this system, either the quality of the data or the inferences (has anybody?), but I suspect when you get to the other shore you will find a misuse of the notion of probability.

 

Ceteris is never paribus on the golf course, as far as I am concerned.  Even among pros how close things come to being equal is very doubtful.  When they go on about how the guys who go for the par five in two score better, you have to assume the guys who didn’t go for it didn’t because they didn’t think they could…and who would know better than them?  Mr. Fawcett?

 

It doesn’t mean that everybody should go for it in two, it just means the better golfers (in this case generally longer hitters) score better.

 

When I watch tv I see the best golfers time and again lay up to a certain distance (when they lay up) and talk about how they do so based on their knowledge of their abilities.  If they listened to people who tell them just to get it as close as they can based on statistics…nobody would be listing to what they said, they would be listening to the winners

 

I see the winners drive the short par fours, go for the par fives in two, and I also see the winners attack the heck out of the pins.  Does this mean I should?  Or you should?  Or that the guy who came in 50th should have?  Of course not.

 

 

Great response. 

I know I’m no tour pro, but I believe that nobody knows my game better than I do. So while I get the appeal of the DECADE approach, when I used it I was sometimes knowingly playing shots that I didn’t have, didn’t want to hit, or didn’t commit to. Statistics only tell so much of the story. Almost everything in this game is situational and the formulas did not leave me much room to improvise. I still think it has some merit but just not my cup of tea. 👍

[gentles]

At the risk of turning this into a decade thread, ive never seen a good treatment of how to treat courses with large trees that line the fairway - Sahalee is an extreme example of this.

 

I play a fade off the tee, and in many cases at my home course the hazards at 280 would suggest its a bomb driver, except in some cases a part of the fairway and left rough are not actually possible, and a small pull would result in catching trees and lose upwards of 50% of the shot difference.

 

Put another way, with a 20 yard fade, the effective landing area is much smaller than if the ball flight was a 20 yard draw, as the entire right hand side of the draw dispersion is still functional, and you get the full distance of the shot. 

 

Any advice for how to factor these hazards that are vertical rather than at just at the point of landing into a decision tree?

 

[Santiago Golf]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Nobody is, and they don't generally matter for decent players under most conditions. I gave my speech to the ASGCA at their annual meeting on angles. OT for this topic, but… if there's an "angles" topic somewhere here, I'll check it out.

 

i think angles matter much more on short game shots than they do on approach shots. the lower you hit the ball ... maybe having a 'better' angle matters, but i agree with your point spot on.

 

where i caddie we have 50 to 170 yard wide fairways and greens that are often over 8000 sq feet. so i will direct people on 'angles' but its much more practical than a 'typical' golf course. 

 

the coin flip for GIR 

PGA Tour about 7 iron

Scratch about a PW 

14 handicap 3/4 sw

 

so even if you pull of the tee shot, having 'angle' doesn't guarantee anything unless you have a club in that is less than the coin flip above. 

 

I honestly think the OP didn't apply Decade properly or understand the concept of what Scott is presenting. 

 

Scott major point is to take what you need from DECADE.

 

I focus on the mental side of it, punch outs, Driver strategy, and it confirmed my beliefs on putting. Approach play and short game strategy is a huge plus but i dont need to focus on this too much. finding 5%/10% of a distance is an easy equation and from caddying i see the smart targets pretty quickly. The short game strategy was already my strategy (have one shot, focus on distance control)

 

if i had DECADE in High School ... i truely believe i would have been a mid to low 70s shooter not a mid 80s shooter. 

 

its just like when im caddying ... every once in a while i will save a full shot or two on a hole but in reality im saving a player a .25 a hole and i have 1 bad decision a round. Over 18 holes thats, 18×.25= 4.5 - 1 = 3.5 shots. 

 

DECADE is going to save you a quarter shot here and a half shot there. You still have to hit some okay golf shots. 

 

rant over

 

 

 

 

[GoGoErky]

5 minutes ago, Santiago Golf said:

I honestly think the OP didn't apply Decade properly or understand the concept of what Scott is presenting. 

 

This was my take reading the various replies from the op 

[Santiago Golf]

4 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

This was my take reading the various replies from the op 

 

 the obvious one was that DECADE made their swing get to in to out because of the one ball flight rule. 

 

Scott will say shaping shots is fine with 7 iron down, just dont change your swing. use ball position and how you hold your club to do it. 

 

Also Scott is 100% right about Will Zalatorus not being on the PGA Tour without DECADE. He was outside the top 500 in Junior WAGR rankings before Scott caddying for him in the Texas Am and US Junior. He is just like most junior golfers, could hit far and could all the shots ... just was following the myths about course management 

[Santiago Golf]

3 hours ago, gentles said:

At the risk of turning this into a decade thread, ive never seen a good treatment of how to treat courses with large trees that line the fairway - Sahalee is an extreme example of this.

 

I play a fade off the tee, and in many cases at my home course the hazards at 280 would suggest its a bomb driver, except in some cases a part of the fairway and left rough are not actually possible, and a small pull would result in catching trees and lose upwards of 50% of the shot difference.

 

Put another way, with a 20 yard fade, the effective landing area is much smaller than if the ball flight was a 20 yard draw, as the entire right hand side of the draw dispersion is still functional, and you get the full distance of the shot. 

 

Any advice for how to factor these hazards that are vertical rather than at just at the point of landing into a decision tree?

 

 

 

i think Scott would say to get a mini driver or strong 3 wood that is setup to Draw ... it might 10 to 20 yards less than driver but its going to fall left with your normal swing. so then on those holes hit '2 wood' and you losing anything being 15ish yards back in the fairway 

 

i typically play a draw with my Driver (not last night lol) and draw my irons. But i can fade my 2 wood alot easier on purpose than driver. Than are some really tight holes that bend the wrong way on my 'village' course that i honestly just play for bogey on those couple holes and i know i will make birdie on the par 5s to make up for it. 

[kiawah]

17 hours ago, Jtgavigan said:

 

We are all not the same and we sometimes forget that. Interestingly enough, I am very technical with many things I do and do study my golf data, but on the course, I much more go by feel. DECADE brought some structure to a place where I had none. That is why it was probably easy for me to relate to and not overcomplicate it. I didn't want to get into analysis paralysis. If I was playing serious tournament golf, I would probably have some kind of a book with me that had much of the math pre-done, so I could just go play. I have watched Dechambeau play some on YouTube and listened to some of his player/caddy conversations. I could never play that technically. But, having some technical thing to adhere to isn't bad.

Most of DECADE is pretty common sense.

 

I have seen your posts about putting. In taking a quick look at your SG putting, I was surprised and don't understand your rating on 20+ foot putts. Maybe there just isn't enough data yet. But looking at your stats, you are VERY good from 6 feet and in, pretty decent out to 20 feet. I think what Scott gets at with putting is sometimes people get too aggressive on longer putts and leave more meat on the bone than they should. His metric is to leave the ball consistently within 10% of your distance - so 60 foot putt, get it to within 6 feet, 50 footer within 5 feet, etc. Also, many people get pretty aggressive on 15-25 foot putts and ram them by, leaving a longer putt than needed. That is why he harps on speed control. So, it just made me wonder if speed control outside of 20 feet COULD be an issue (maybe not enough data). What is going on there? Looks like you have a legit strength as a short putter. Looks like outside of 20 feet, you 3 putt a lot. So, I am trying to square being a good short putter and having too many 3 putts. That doesn't square. I think if Scott looked at your data, he would say the same thing and say "THIS is why I tell people to quit trying to make putts."    

Early in the season I had a really tough stretch where my speed was really poor but things have improved as the greens have gotten better and I have focused more on working on it.

 

First of all, I think one problem I have is that I am essentially guessing the distance and my most common error in that is underestimating the distance. So I might really have 45 feet, but I might think that it's closer to 35 when I am entering the strokes gained info.

 

My most common miss is coming up well short on these putts (especially the uphill ones), so my problem isn't really trying too hard to make it. I have estimated that I come up short in that range roughly 70% of the time. I have actually recently been much better trying harder to convince myself to try and make them at center of the cup speed and the results have been much better. Even if I do miss long, it's not by more than I had been coming up short. I am trying really hard to rectify the bad stats on the long putts, but the course I play is rather short and has extremely undulating greens. You will never have a 40 footer that doesn't either go up or down a tier or doesn't double break, so that's part of it too. But I am definitely on the right track as of recent. Getting through most rounds without a three putt, anyway. Another factor is that I went over a month without making anything outside of 20 feet when the greens were punched, which definitely did not help my numbers. 

[kiawah]

20 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

This was my take reading the various replies from the op 

 

10 minutes ago, Santiago Golf said:

 

 the obvious one was that DECADE made their swing get to in to out because of the one ball flight rule. 

 

Scott will say shaping shots is fine with 7 iron down, just dont change your swing. use ball position and how you hold your club to do it. 

 

Also Scott is 100% right about Will Zalatorus not being on the PGA Tour without DECADE. He was outside the top 500 in Junior WAGR rankings before Scott caddying for him in the Texas Am and US Junior. He is just like most junior golfers, could hit far and could all the shots ... just was following the myths about course management 

Yeah, like I said, I may have been going about it wrong. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say. But the system is just too much for me to think about when I'm under pressure.

[kiawah]

11 minutes ago, Santiago Golf said:

 

 

i think Scott would say to get a mini driver or strong 3 wood that is setup to Draw ... it might 10 to 20 yards less than driver but its going to fall left with your normal swing. so then on those holes hit '2 wood' and you losing anything being 15ish yards back in the fairway 

 

i typically play a draw with my Driver (not last night lol) and draw my irons. But i can fade my 2 wood alot easier on purpose than driver. Than are some really tight holes that bend the wrong way on my 'village' course that i honestly just play for bogey on those couple holes and i know i will make birdie on the par 5s to make up for it. 

What part of DECADE suggests that you should deliberately play for bogey on certain holes? Doesn't that completely contradict a lot of the system? And then you're approaching the par 5s TRYING to make birdie? I dunno, I definitely had my fair share of misunderstandings, but I am having a hard time squaring that. 

[Jtgavigan]

1 hour ago, kiawah said:

Early in the season I had a really tough stretch where my speed was really poor but things have improved as the greens have gotten better and I have focused more on working on it.

 

First of all, I think one problem I have is that I am essentially guessing the distance and my most common error in that is underestimating the distance. So I might really have 45 feet, but I might think that it's closer to 35 when I am entering the strokes gained info.

 

My most common miss is coming up well short on these putts (especially the uphill ones), so my problem isn't really trying too hard to make it. I have estimated that I come up short in that range roughly 70% of the time. I have actually recently been much better trying harder to convince myself to try and make them at center of the cup speed and the results have been much better. Even if I do miss long, it's not by more than I had been coming up short. I am trying really hard to rectify the bad stats on the long putts, but the course I play is rather short and has extremely undulating greens. You will never have a 40 footer that doesn't either go up or down a tier or doesn't double break, so that's part of it too. But I am definitely on the right track as of recent. Getting through most rounds without a three putt, anyway. Another factor is that I went over a month without making anything outside of 20 feet when the greens were punched, which definitely did not help my numbers. 

 

Makes perfect sense. I knew there was more to it.

[Santiago Golf]

2 hours ago, kiawah said:

What part of DECADE suggests that you should deliberately play for bogey on certain holes? Doesn't that completely contradict a lot of the system? And then you're approaching the par 5s TRYING to make birdie? I dunno, I definitely had my fair share of misunderstandings, but I am having a hard time squaring that. 

 

if the hole scoring avg is 4.9 on a par 4 ... a bogey is only costing me .1 shots. If i play for bogey ... im going maybe make a par but not going to make double or worse. If im playing well, a par 5 is going to avg 4.5 ... i make birdie ... i gain .4 shots from my strategy. This aligns with Scott is talking about.

 

even par gets through most qualifiers at my level, that is all need to shoot. 

 

if i played in a US Open trying to make par on every hole, tgen i would shoot 127. If i tried to shoot 85, i would probably shoot 89. 

 

 

 

 

[kiawah]

1 hour ago, Santiago Golf said:

 

if the hole scoring avg is 4.9 on a par 4 ... a bogey is only costing me .1 shots. If i play for bogey ... im going maybe make a par but not going to make double or worse. If im playing well, a par 5 is going to avg 4.5 ... i make birdie ... i gain .4 shots from my strategy. This aligns with Scott is talking about.

 

even par gets through most qualifiers at my level, that is all need to shoot. 

 

if i played in a US Open trying to make par on every hole, tgen i would shoot 127. If i tried to shoot 85, i would probably shoot 89. 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough. Thanks for responding. Just a couple of questions: Is that 4.9 and 4.5 scoring average hypothetical or real? If it's real, is your average on that hole, some field's average, or some other calculation? Sidebar: That par 4 must be brutal if an entire field is playing it in a shot over par on average. 

 

I guess my question is by playing for bogey (which I assume entails laying up at some point somewhere), don't you have to be extremely precise with your layups or face potential disaster if there are hazards on the hole in question? Theres a 470 par 4 at my course with trouble left and right off the tee and a creek that cuts the fairway off around 350 yards out before the hole goes uphill 10-15 yards. If I were to try to play for bogey and hit a 4 iron off the tee, my goose would be absolutely cooked since the hole is really long and doglegs around trees that line the other side of the left hazard. If that hole is playing so hard in relation to par I'm guessing there must be some kind of hazard somewhere that might make playing for bogey risky? 

[RichieHunt]

21 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Nobody is, and they don't generally matter for decent players under most conditions. I gave my speech to the ASGCA at their annual meeting on angles. OT for this topic, but… if there's an "angles" topic somewhere here, I'll check it out.

 

Angles only matter when you're within about 40 yards to the hole.  Then that's 'short siding' yourself just because it's difficult to get the spin and landing angle right to hit it close.  But that only matters if you're comparing shots from about the same distance.  If you're talking about a 40 yard shot from a bad angle vs. a 100 yard shot from a good angle (with the same lie), then you're better off taking the 40-yard shot with the bad angle.  

But chasing a 'good angle' for say a 110 yard shot from the fairway vs. a bad angel from 110 yards from the fairway is basically an exercise in futility.  

When it comes to lie conditions, you're generally better off just hitting it as close as you can because one can't really predict the likelihood of ending up in the fairway vs. the green vs. the rough vs. the sand.  You're generally better off laying up int eh fairweay from about 100 yards or less than you would be having a 30+ yard bunker shot.  But you have to really calculate your odds of ending up in the bunker if you go for it.  I tend to be a bit leery of back pins on par-5's with large greens and bunkers up front.  Those tend to give way to 30+ yard bunker shots.  But other than that, I'm typically trying to get the ball as close tot he hole as I can.



RH

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Santiago Golf said:

Also Scott is 100% right about Will Zalatorus not being on the PGA Tour without DECADE.

 

Ehhhhhhhh… no. You don't know what he'd have done after that. There are plenty of people who made it to the Tour without being high ranked amateurs, who found it later than age 15 or 16 or whatever, etc.

 

30 minutes ago, RichieHunt said:

Angles only matter when you're within about 40 yards to the hole.

 

This isn't really the topic for it, but… for good players, outside of about 40 yards, it's often a point-to-point exercise, yes.. The VERY short version is that angles matter when the ball is rolling/bouncing. But again, it's OT here, so… I'm not going into it all.

Edited June 26 by iacas

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

On 6/25/2024 at 2:39 PM, 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. 

This makes sense to me, but then again, like either Fawcett or Brodie (I forget which), I also play cards fairly seriously.  So this kind of math is natural for me, in the same way a musician doesn't have to look in a book to figure out the next note in a scale.

 

(And absolutely hilarious to implement at my level of skill.  'How about we just hit the middle of the green, Slugger, and go from there?')

 

If the math isn't natural for you, then I can totally see you getting wrapped up in your own head by it; e.g., BDC last year. 

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

13 hours ago, gentles said:

At the risk of turning this into a decade thread, ive never seen a good treatment of how to treat courses with large trees that line the fairway - Sahalee is an extreme example of this....

 

I'll preface this by stating that I've not bought Decade, though am somewhat familiar with the gross concepts as they've trickled into golf commentary.  But (and I'm mentally substituting Spyglass Hill for Sahalee here, where the trees are also *that* penal), why wouldn't you determine the dispersion for a given club and stock flight, and only select clubs where a middle 80% population (or whatever Decade uses) doesn't leave you in the trees?

 

E.g., I play a fade with my driver.  For now.  It's a temperamental beast.  But when it's working, it's a touch of a fade that goes high and ends up maybe 10-20 yds right of my target line.  It needs a big cone 250-300 yds downrange.  50 yds, ideally.  If the landing area is only 40 yds wide, I can't play that club realistically.  As penal as Spyglass's trees are. 

 

So I have to club down to something that goes to a target area size where I likely won't put it into the trees, or I play Russian Roulette and just deal with it.

But that's the dynamic. (If I can borrow that term from PokerLand.) 

 

I'm not seeing what your question about it is.  Which is my fault.

[gentles]

5 minutes ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

I'll preface this by stating that I've not bought Decade, though am somewhat familiar with the gross concepts as they've trickled into golf commentary.  But (and I'm mentally substituting Spyglass Hill for Sahalee here, where the trees are also *that* penal), why wouldn't you determine the dispersion for a given club and stock flight, and only select clubs where a middle 80% population (or whatever Decade uses) doesn't leave you in the trees?

 

E.g., I play a fade with my driver.  For now.  It's a temperamental beast.  But when it's working, it's a touch of a fade that goes high and ends up maybe 10-20 yds right of my target line.  It needs a big cone 250-300 yds downrange.  50 yds, ideally.  If the landing area is only 40 yds wide, I can't play that club realistically.  As penal as Spyglass's trees are. 

 

So I have to club down to something that goes to a target area size where I likely won't put it into the trees, or I play Russian Roulette and just deal with it.

But that's the dynamic. (If I can borrow that term from PokerLand.) 

 

I'm not seeing what your question about it is.  Which is my fault.

 

Example - 450 yard par 4 with tall trees all down the left hand side and fairway bunkers on the right.

 

Decade target says to take a driver and play to the left centre to avoid ending up in the fairway bunkers.

 

However I play I 20 yard fade and its literally impossible to get my ball in the left hand side of the fairway unless it somehow doesnt fade. If I hug the tree line I can get it in the centre of the fairway, but the margin for error would be tiny. The penalty for hitting the trees is not just a recovery shot from 150 out, but a recovery from 300+ out.

 

If I instead played a draw, I can centre my target on left center easily without much risk of catching trees and losing 100+ yards. Even if I hit a slight pull, if the ball is moving right to left I will get the full distance of the tee shot. Worst case would be a 150 recovery shot from the trees. 

 

My question is how do you account for trees that are so big that they will not only leave you in a recovery position, but also cost you significant distance if you hit them. 

 

The above poster suggested that having a right to left shot is the right option here to provide a better expected value. 

 

Does that make sense? Very close to getting a notebook out to try and scribble some pics!

[golferdude54]

Just walk the entire golf course without bringing your clubs and mentally play it if you want to come up with the best course management strategy. Too many golfers focus on the fairways and greens when it comes to picking lines and they ignore the trees and bunkers which are actually great markers.

[mstuewe]

On 6/26/2024 at 8:38 PM, gentles said:

 

Example - 450 yard par 4 with tall trees all down the left hand side and fairway bunkers on the right.

 

Decade target says to take a driver and play to the left centre to avoid ending up in the fairway bunkers.

 

However I play I 20 yard fade and its literally impossible to get my ball in the left hand side of the fairway unless it somehow doesnt fade. If I hug the tree line I can get it in the centre of the fairway, but the margin for error would be tiny. The penalty for hitting the trees is not just a recovery shot from 150 out, but a recovery from 300+ out.

 

If I instead played a draw, I can centre my target on left center easily without much risk of catching trees and losing 100+ yards. Even if I hit a slight pull, if the ball is moving right to left I will get the full distance of the tee shot. Worst case would be a 150 recovery shot from the trees. 

 

My question is how do you account for trees that are so big that they will not only leave you in a recovery position, but also cost you significant distance if you hit them. 

 

The above poster suggested that having a right to left shot is the right option here to provide a better expected value. 

 

Does that make sense? Very close to getting a notebook out to try and scribble some pics!

 

I think Fawcett would say learn to hit a draw with your 3 wood.  Drivers are designed to be fade bias, 3 woods are easier to turn over. 

[Trap Junior]

I think Scott is excellent and its a good system.

 

However from my experience (I play at a decent level) the strategy is really only suited to American style courses with big greens and wide fairways.

In Europe most clubs fairways are 25-30yds wide average and densely tree lined.  Greens are 15 yds wide on average.  Hitting into trees here is a chip out sideways.

 

Links golf courses also have pot bunkers which are far more penal than american bunkers. They cost you at least a shot if you go int hem off the tee so whaling away with driver is not smart of it brings these into play.

 

Also decade is designed to make you more consistent.  Consistent mediocrity will get you nowhere.  Better to have great days and horrendous days. Especially in one round tournaments.

 

Like I say its a great system especially if you are not very clued in tactically but it has its drawbacks and is too black and white and doesn't allow for nuance. 

[Santiago Golf]

22 minutes ago, Trap Junior said:

I think Scott is excellent and its a good system.

 

However from my experience (I play at a decent level) the strategy is really only suited to American style courses with big greens and wide fairways.

In Europe most clubs fairways are 25-30yds wide average and densely tree lined.  Greens are 15 yds wide on average.  Hitting into trees here is a chip out sideways.

 

Links golf courses also have pot bunkers which are far more penal than american bunkers. They cost you at least a shot if you go int hem off the tee so whaling away with driver is not smart of it brings these into play.

 

Also decade is designed to make you more consistent.  Consistent mediocrity will get you nowhere.  Better to have great days and horrendous days. Especially in one round tournaments.

 

Like I say its a great system especially if you are not very clued in tactically but it has its drawbacks and is too black and white and doesn't allow for nuance. 

 

So what Scott would say about the super tight tree lined course would be the following

 

1) If you hit less than driver, will you have less than 7 iron for your approach on an avg strike 

    a) If yes, then hit less than driver

    b) If no, then hit Driver

 

The chances of hitting the fairway in that situation with a Driver is probably a little better than a coin flip and the entire field has those odds.

Though hitting the green with more than a 6 iron, is less than a coin flip 

So laying back isn't guarantying a par more than hitting driver into the woods and punching out

 

Logic says the following

Over a 4 Round tournament, on that hole (if you hit driver all 4 rounds), you will do the following scenarios (considering your game is on this week)

a) Driver in the fairway, hit the green, make the putt Birdie

b) Driver in the fairway, hit the green, two putt, par

c) Driver in the woods, punch down the hole, wedge it tight, par

d) Driver in the woods, punch sideways, on the green approach, two putt, bogey

Overall: you play the difficult hole even par which will gain you .25 at least each round (1 shot over a 4 round tournament)

 

Versus the following with the 4 iron off the tee logic

a) 4 iron in the fairway, 5 iron on the green. two putt, par

b) 4 iron in the fairway, miss the green, chip, 1 putt, par

c) 4 iron in the fairway, miss the green, chip, two putt, bogey

d) 4 iron miss the fairway, punch out, miss the green, chip (bogey or double, its pretty much a coin flip)

Overall: you play the difficult hole +2.5 and lose more than .25 each round 

 

You have to remember; you are more playing the field than the golf course. If you are hitting a few bad shots, so is everyone else. 

 

 

 

[ShortGolfer]

Yes, golfing systems are far too black and white for me.  I was a terrible athlete and an almost Ivy League quality chess player.  I'd play every week and get beat at the Penn Chess club!

I suppose I could have opened a chess book and gotten more wins but that isn't why I played against much stronger players.

 

Guess what, short sided green shots are exactly in my wheelhouse!  I have remarkable consistency and and a slow swing speed.

I've also survived life changing events to know that golf is just a game for enjoyment. 

Even at the pro level, if you can please the fans, so you have a loyal fan base, that can be just as useful for cash flow as doing well on the golf course.

 

I go one step further than pin hunting.  Getting close to the pin isn't good enough if it leaves me with a difficult downhill putt.

I'd rather have a much longer uphill putt with no break.  I studied the Pelz book to better understand how balls bounce when they hit a green that isn't flat.

Similarly, my stock swing is a high fade, ideal for getting out of bunkers.  I have a club for getting out of bunkers with no sand.

 

Trees are my nemisis.  I hit trees.  I've done stretches where I hit the same tree round after round.  As I said, I have remarkable consistency!

Over the winter I worked on hitting the ball straight down the fairway.  I don't have to think about trees if I do that!

If I miss with my short distance drives it should end up on the edge of either side of the fairway.  If I'm really worried I can swing my draw or fade for  additional safety.

If I do hit a tree I'm punching out, maximizing my chance of hitting an approach shots from a fairway lie.

Bomb and gouge doesn't work for me.  This isn't like the pros where you have spotters to find your ball!  

 

I watched the very best at the Traveler's Championship.  I was camped out on the first hole where I could see everything with binoculars.

They played twosomes.  Almost all the time both players drives ended up near each other!  I recall only one case of the balls ending up on either side of the fairway.

The mental aspect of golf is huge.

 

Nothing wrong if a system is too complicated for you.  Folks have different ways of thinking.  You may need a system better adapted to how you think.

Harvey Penick, who wrote the Little Red Book, believed in one on one golf instruction.

Edited Friday at 01:44 PM by ShortGolfer

[GoGoErky]

On 6/25/2024 at 5:58 PM, Chunkitgood said:

When I watch tv I see the best golfers time and again lay up to a certain distance (when they lay up) and talk about how they do so based on their knowledge of their abilities.  If they listened to people who tell them just to get it as close as they can based on statistics…nobody would be listing to what they said, they would be listening to the winners

If you were familiar with things like decade it’s not all about just hitting as far as possible. You take in risks and other factors.

 

 

[Trap Junior]

1 hour ago, Santiago Golf said:

 

So what Scott would say about the super tight tree lined course would be the following

 

1) If you hit less than driver, will you have less than 7 iron for your approach on an avg strike 

    a) If yes, then hit less than driver

    b) If no, then hit Driver

 

The chances of hitting the fairway in that situation with a Driver is probably a little better than a coin flip and the entire field has those odds.

Though hitting the green with more than a 6 iron, is less than a coin flip 

So laying back isn't guarantying a par more than hitting driver into the woods and punching out

 

Logic says the following

Over a 4 Round tournament, on that hole (if you hit driver all 4 rounds), you will do the following scenarios (considering your game is on this week)

a) Driver in the fairway, hit the green, make the putt Birdie

b) Driver in the fairway, hit the green, two putt, par

c) Driver in the woods, punch down the hole, wedge it tight, par

d) Driver in the woods, punch sideways, on the green approach, two putt, bogey

Overall: you play the difficult hole even par which will gain you .25 at least each round (1 shot over a 4 round tournament)

 

Versus the following with the 4 iron off the tee logic

a) 4 iron in the fairway, 5 iron on the green. two putt, par

b) 4 iron in the fairway, miss the green, chip, 1 putt, par

c) 4 iron in the fairway, miss the green, chip, two putt, bogey

d) 4 iron miss the fairway, punch out, miss the green, chip (bogey or double, its pretty much a coin flip)

Overall: you play the difficult hole +2.5 and lose more than .25 each round 

 

You have to remember; you are more playing the field than the golf course. If you are hitting a few bad shots, so is everyone else. 

 

 

 

I get that but what can happen is you hit a driver but it goes 30-40 into the trees and have no shot back to the fairway and can run up a double or triple.

 

4 iron may only go 10 yds into the trees.

 

Also the tree lined are may only start where a driver is landing.  So lay back to take trees out of play etc..

 

Generally I think Scott is great and the system is very good in most situations but its a little bit too black and white and no grey for me and only suits certain types of layout. 

 

 

I agree hitting driver is the play whenever possible.  But I also think his targets into the greens are too conservative especially in one round events and you will lose to the guys who go at the flags and have their game that day. That's my experience.  If you follow Scotts formula to the letter you have to be ridiculously hot with mid range putts to make up for it.

 

Consistency is overrated.  Hot and cold is better than being consistently good.

[Trap Junior]

Another bit of my 2 cents on this.  I prefer to be short sided (unless its an impossible shot) a lot more than say missing the green after picking a more conservative strategy and haveing a 40 yds bunker shot or a 35 yard pitch.  I find those harder than a flop or 10 yard bunker shot.

 

Also a slight flaw I would suggest is using tour pro data to apply to amateurs or less skillful ones say like scratch golfers.

 

A tour pro playing a driver 10 times on the same hole versus iron/3wood might give different results to an amateur who has no predictable miss and sprays it all over the place and hots driver 10 times on the same hole versus a hybrid for example.

 

I'm open to being wrong on that but its a question I have in my head about the strategy.