Golf!!!2!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I commend you on your diligence in mastering those shots. As to the article, you are also talking about the best players in the world who spend three quarters of their practice session working on short game. Amateurs do not have the highly developed feel game these guys have. Most amateurs rarely practice their short game, let alone hitting quarter, half, or three quarter shots. I get the principle, but application is another thing. Most players struggle with hitting full shots, so suggesting they play to the weakest part of their game, and then try to master the half shot doesn't make sense. Play to your strengths and you'll lower your scores quicker and have more fun on the course.

I agree 100%. Sure, if you're practicing every day, you can develop the various partial swings in order to master them all. But most recreational golfers don't get anywhere near enough practice. That is the beauty of choosing a layup distance (100 for me, but it can be whatever you want), you can focus on mastering that distance.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I have spent a lot of the last two months learning to hit 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4 shots. Most of my practice and warm up is with the smaller swings, and gradually lengthening them. It helps me get my tempo right and it makes my transition to the downswing smoother. It has really helped on the course when I get to the in between shots (over swing an 8 iron or hit an easy 7 iron) or get too close to the green for a full shot (e.g. 60 yards).



While watching golf on TV one day they were talking about laying up and/or hitting it to a shorter distance to leave a full club in. The commentators said the math does not favour laying up.


Here's an article from GolfTec. https://golf.com/instruction/two-charts-lay-up-golftec/


The big takeaway for me was that PGA players make 10% more putts, on average, for every one foot closer they are to the hole inside eight feet. The closer you are to the hole, the more likely you are to sink your putt. Pros (obviously I am not one) hit it one foot closer to the hole from 50 yards than they do from 75 yards. This distance to the hole gets wider the larger the handicap and the further out the person is. A mid 90s player might think they like hitting it to 125, but they actually hit it closer to the hole from 100. They hit it substantially closer to the hole when they are 75 yards out.



From the link:





I have read a few of these type of articles. The math overwhelming says to hit it further down the fairway instead of the laying up, regardless of your skill level. To clarify, this does not mean to hit it further when there are bunkers, water hazards, trees, a herd of wolves, etc. in a certain area of the hole. Those you need to avoid, so it may make sense to lay up if you can't get over the water in one stroke.



Do I follow this advice all the time? Of course not. Sometimes it just feels right to hit a hybrid off the tee on a par 5 to make sure I can keep it in bounds. Am I going for it more? I am, and a lot of it is coming from the confidence I have in hitting chips, pitches, and 3/4 shots, as well as knowing I can get it out of the bunker.

What those numbers don't factor is what happens when you hit it into a bunker, or into the deep rough or whatever. I mean sure, if you can keep in the fairway all the time, then great. But I would MUCH rather be 100 yards out in the fairway, than 40 or 50 yards out in the rough or in a bunker. From the fairway, and less than 150 yards out, I am probably making par. Put me in the ####, and not only am I probably not making par, but it introduces the chance of a double, as well.

At the end of the day though, you have to play to your strengths, and manage the course and your game to maximize your likelihood of success. That is what all of these conversations we've been having have been about. Figure out your strengths and the best way for you to be successful, and then manage to that.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I commend you on your diligence in mastering those shots. As to the article, you are also talking about the best players in the world who spend three quarters of their practice session working on short game. Amateurs do not have the highly developed feel game these guys have. Most amateurs rarely practice their short game, let alone hitting quarter, half, or three quarter shots. I get the principle, but application is another thing. Most players struggle with hitting full shots, so suggesting they play to the weakest part of their game, and then try to master the half shot doesn't make sense. Play to your strengths and you'll lower your scores quicker and have more fun on the course.

What the article shows is that whether you shoot 70, 80, 90, or 100, you hit it dramatically closer to the hole when you are closer to the hole. If you are a recreational golfer, with an 18 handicap, you hit it nearer the hole from 75 yards, than you do from 125 yards. This is based purely on math. Look at the chart and look at the proximities from the hole. It’s actually wider in variance than with a high handicapper than it is with a pro. The simple math, per the article and others like it, is golfers of all levels hit it closer to the pin when they are closer to the pin. There are several studies in recent years that back this up. If you have an issue with the math or how they calculate it, go after the article and/or conduct your own study. What people think are their strengths (hitting a full shot from 125) may actually be detecting from their game and it could be the reason they are shooting higher scores. Again, it feels counter intuitive to what we’ve been taught over the last 400 years, but the math is showing that you score lower on the golf course when your approach shots are closer to the pin.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I agree 100%. Sure, if you're practicing every day, you can develop the various partial swings in order to master them all. But most recreational golfers don't get anywhere near enough practice. That is the beauty of choosing a layup distance (100 for me, but it can be whatever you want), you can focus on mastering that distance.

So, you’re telling me, that a golfer who doesn’t practice, and isn’t very good, can have the accuracy to lay it up to 100 yards in the fairway, and then will hit it close to the pin from that distance? You’re saying a person can master the certain distance but you’re also saying that same person doesn’t practice enough. That’s the basic outcome of the study. It’s saying golfers don’t practice enough. Because of that they have a better chance of getting closer to the pin from 75 yards than they do from 125 yards because they mi#### it more often. As such, when they are choosing to layup or hit it closer to the green (but still short of the green) it makes mathematical sense to have your next shot from 75 yards rather than 100 or 125 yards.

In practical sense, how often do you see a 20 handicap golfer hit it to 100 yards and then shank/duff it? It’s all the time. Now if he is hitting from 50-75 yards out, he is able to have a greater margin of error, but still hit it closer to the hole. That is what the math is stating upon thousands of golfers hitting approach shots.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

What the article shows is that whether you shoot 70, 80, 90, or 100, you hit it dramatically closer to the hole when you are closer to the hole. If you are a recreational golfer, with an 18 handicap, you hit it nearer the hole from 75 yards, than you do from 125 yards. This is based purely on math. Look at the chart and look at the proximities from the hole. It’s actually wider in variance than with a high handicapper than it is with a pro. The simple math, per the article and others like it, is golfers of all levels hit it closer to the pin when they are closer to the pin. There are several studies in recent years that back this up. If you have an issue with the math or how they calculate it, go after the article and/or conduct your own study. What people think are their strengths (hitting a full shot from 125) may actually be detecting from their game and it could be the reason they are shooting higher scores. Again, it feels counter intuitive to what we’ve been taught over the last 400 years, but the math is showing that you score lower on the golf course when your approach shots are closer to the pin.

Similar (but not the exact same) is that when I needed to improve my putting, I started by improving my chipping and pitching. You just make more putts inside 8 feet than you do from inside 20 feet. Consequently, getting those chips closer means making more putts. You’d never putt it to 5 feet because you like that distance though, because that would be ridiculous!

[Winsor_Pilates]

Heading to the island today for 3 rounds in 4 days.

Got a scramble tournament tomorrow at Arbutus Ridge.
2 day friends tournament Saturday/Sunday playing Mt Breton & Cordova Bay.

Can't wait!

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Slava

Similar (but not the exact same) is that when I needed to improve my putting, I started by improving my chipping and pitching. You just make more putts inside 8 feet than you do from inside 20 feet. Consequently, getting those chips closer means making more putts. You’d never putt it to 5 feet because you like that distance though, because that would be ridiculous!

My putting is so atrocious! I played 9 after work yesterday, and shot a 46 with 7 GIR. Oddly, my typical 9 is 44-46 with 1-2 GIR. I'm just destined to be a bogey golfer at this stage in life, and by bogey golfer, I'm literally averaging 16+ bogeys per 18 holes.

[mrkajz44]

I wonder if the feeling that it's better to be hitting it in from a 100+ yards with a full swing rather than a 70 yards with a partial swing is unconscious expectations? When you are close enough that you are doing a partial swing, you surely have the expectation you'll be on the green and maybe even be in a position to 1 putt. But from 125, your probably just pleased to be on the green and 2 putt is more commonly expected. So while your 70 yard shot is actually better than your 125 yard shot, it feels worse because your expectations are higher for the 70 yard shot?

I'll admit I've also been a guy that didn't like partial swing shots, but since I got a range finder I'm no longer as afraid of them as I feel like I have a good idea of how hard to hit the partial swing shots now. No more guessing if I'm 40 yards or 60 yards away trying to eyeball the distance.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

So, you’re telling me, that a golfer who doesn’t practice, and isn’t very good, can have the accuracy to lay it up to 100 yards in the fairway, and then will hit it close to the pin from that distance? You’re saying a person can master the certain distance but you’re also saying that same person doesn’t practice enough. That’s the basic outcome of the study. It’s saying golfers don’t practice enough. Because of that they have a better chance of getting closer to the pin from 75 yards than they do from 125 yards because they mi#### it more often. As such, when they are choosing to layup or hit it closer to the green (but still short of the green) it makes mathematical sense to have your next shot from 75 yards rather than 100 or 125 yards.

In practical sense, how often do you see a 20 handicap golfer hit it to 100 yards and then shank/duff it? It’s all the time. Now if he is hitting from 50-75 yards out, he is able to have a greater margin of error, but still hit it closer to the hole. That is what the math is stating upon thousands of golfers hitting approach shots.

I think the point is that an individual can get much better at hitting a full shot with a single club than trying to hit a number of shots with different clubs using touch. Touch is the hardest thing for players to develop because it takes an incredible amount of time and practice to develop. It is also why it is the first thing to go when people take an extended period off. Touch is only there with repetition and practice. Conversely, hitting a full shot should be quickly recovered, even after a lengthy break.

For a recreational player I would always recommend they find that zone where they can hit the 8-out-of-10 shot and lay back to that position, because the alternative is hitting 1-out-of-10 shots from areas where golf course designers drop the most hazards and make scoring the toughest. If you asked players what is the strength of their game, very few are going to go to the short game first and foremost.

This is the thing that is bogus about that article IMO. They look at the problem from just a distance perspective, which to me is a scam. They are taking out the very challenges that arise as you get near the green, which are hazards and deep rough designed to make it more difficult on the golfer. Bull#### statistics generated on the range are completely irrelevant once you get out on the golf course and those hazards become a reality. Sure, bomb it down to 60 yards, in the deep rough, then contend with the bunker right in front of the pin, or the fact you just shorted yourself and nor are forced to try and hit a fade away green with a deft touch shot. The game is different from the simulator or the range where everything is flat and you don't have to take the hazards into play. The recreational player is better off laying back to 100 yards and getting proficient at that one shot than trying to navigate a series of shots that require different clubs, different bounces, and most importantly, different swing lengths. Simplify your game and it will get better quicker. Once you become proficient at the simple game, then take on another challenge, like the half shot. But if you can't make a consistent full swing, can't hit the ball straight, and can't putt, what are you doing trying to play finesse golf? Bad article is bad advice IMO.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I think the point is that an individual can get much better at hitting a full shot with a single club than trying to hit a number of shots with different clubs using touch. Touch is the hardest thing for players to develop because it takes an incredible amount of time and practice to develop. It is also why it is the first thing to go when people take an extended period off. Touch is only there with repetition and practice. Conversely, hitting a full shot should be quickly recovered, even after a lengthy break.

For a recreational player I would always recommend they find that zone where they can hit the 8-out-of-10 shot and lay back to that position, because the alternative is hitting 1-out-of-10 shots from areas where golf course designers drop the most hazards and make scoring the toughest. If you asked players what is the strength of their game, very few are going to go to the short game first and foremost.

This is the thing that is bogus about that article IMO. They look at the problem from just a distance perspective, which to me is a scam. They are taking out the very challenges that arise as you get near the green, which are hazards and deep rough designed to make it more difficult on the golfer. Bull#### statistics generated on the range are completely irrelevant once you get out on the golf course and those hazards become a reality. Sure, bomb it down to 60 yards, in the deep rough, then contend with the bunker right in front of the pin, or the fact you just shorted yourself and nor are forced to try and hit a fade away green with a deft touch shot. The game is different from the simulator or the range where everything is flat and you don't have to take the hazards into play. The recreational player is better off laying back to 100 yards and getting proficient at that one shot than trying to navigate a series of shots that require different clubs, different bounces, and most importantly, different swing lengths. Simplify your game and it will get better quicker. Once you become proficient at the simple game, then take on another challenge, like the half shot. But if you can't make a consistent full swing, can't hit the ball straight, and can't putt, what are you doing trying to play finesse golf? Bad article is bad advice IMO.

There's got to be some common sense here and probably always depends on the situation. Most rec golfers are probably more comfortable with driver off the tee since modern driver are so forgiving. The driver is probably the right choice for most people, most of the time unless there is trouble in your normal range.

There's a lot of situations where it is probably wise to aim for a comfortable, stock distance in a wide part of the fairway when laying up vs hitting a 3 wood as far as you can when at best you'll be 20-30 short and you have a good chance of slicing it into the trees.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

There's got to be some common sense here and probably always depends on the situation.

Yes, common sense should come into play, which is why there are so many bad golfers out there. Between testosterone, ego, and lack of brains impacting the application of common sense, these are three of the greatest challenges facing golf today and cause the inflation of handicaps everywhere.

Most rec golfers are probably more comfortable with driver off the tee since modern driver are so forgiving. The driver is probably the right choice for most people, most of the time unless there is trouble in your normal range.

And this is where we completely disagree. The driver is the longest and flattest club in the bag, making it the most difficult to hit. When teaching, the driver is the last club you let a student get in their hands, because it is a grenade with the pin already pulled. Nothing will blow up a player's game and confidence quicker than the driver. The latest iterations are easier to hit, but they are still a tough club to control and get most players in more trouble than they can handle. The distance generated from these clubs give players a false sense of ability and choice in tee box, again hurting their game and potential to improve. Players are better off playing forward and hitting shorter clubs to learn how to hit the ball and develop some skill. But this is another philosophical battle that also hurts the game today. Players should try and learn to hit their clubs to be successful from all distances, not just be yard apes that hack their way around the greens.

There's a lot of situations where it is probably wise to aim for a comfortable, stock distance in a wide part of the fairway when laying up vs hitting a 3 wood as far as you can when at best you'll be 20-30 short and you have a good chance of slicing it into the trees.

You stand a much greater chance of slicing a ball into trouble with the driver than you do with a shorter club. The same corrective technologies in drivers are incorporated into all clubs these days, so you should be hitting the clubs with the same diminishing dispersion pattern as you work your way down the set. The 3 wood is the ultimate compromise for distance and straightness because of the lack of mass in the head of the driver which ultimately creates the swing variations (mechanical or human) that cause slices and hooks. But the driver is the big dog and most high handicappers will default to it for the three variables mentioned in the first paragraph of this response. Never under-estimate the impact of testosterone, ego, and brains from preventing good decision making that will improve a player's ability and score.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Yes, common sense should come into play, which is why there are so many bad golfers out there. Between testosterone, ego, and lack of brains impacting the application of common sense, these are three of the greatest challenges facing golf today and cause the inflation of handicaps everywhere.





And this is where we completely disagree. The driver is the longest and flattest club in the bag, making it the most difficult to hit. When teaching, the driver is the last club you let a student get in their hands, because it is a grenade with the pin already pulled. Nothing will blow up a player's game and confidence quicker than the driver. The latest iterations are easier to hit, but they are still a tough club to control and get most players in more trouble than they can handle. The distance generated from these clubs give players a false sense of ability and choice in tee box, again hurting their game and potential to improve. Players are better off playing forward and hitting shorter clubs to learn how to hit the ball and develop some skill. But this is another philosophical battle that also hurts the game today. Players should try and learn to hit their clubs to be successful from all distances, not just be yard apes that hack their way around the greens.



You stand a much greater chance of slicing a ball into trouble with the driver than you do with a shorter club. The same corrective technologies in drivers are incorporated into all clubs these days, so you should be hitting the clubs with the same diminishing dispersion pattern as you work your way down the set. The 3 wood is the ultimate compromise for distance and straightness because of the lack of mass in the head of the driver which ultimately creates the swing variations (mechanical or human) that cause slices and hooks. But the driver is the big dog and most high handicappers will default to it for the three variables mentioned in the first paragraph of this response. Never under-estimate the impact of testosterone, ego, and brains from preventing good decision making that will improve a player's ability and score.

Speaking for the 15 handicappers, I will say my misses with my driver off the tee are fare more likely to be in play than a 3 wood or long iron and I don't think it is particularly close. I probably average one bad miss on a driver every 2-3 rounds, where I'd probably put one in 5 shots with a 3 wood/long iron out of play or chunked or popped up 75 yards. Today's drivers have such a huge face and are built to go mostly straight. You hear the TV guys talk about pros going to their 3 wood when they really need to shape a shot for that reason.

My 3 wood comment was directed at a 220 approach shot, where hitting a 7 iron to 70 yards is probably the better shot than a 3 wood that probably has no chance of getting on the green, and a good chance of something really bad happening.

[Lanny_McDonald]

What are classifying a bad miss?

Also, where do you play in VA? Played Potomac Shores and Laurel Hill while I was in Washington. Some really nice golf around there.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

What are classifying a bad miss?

Also, where do you play in VA? Played Potomac Shores and Laurel Hill while I was in Washington. Some really nice golf around there.

A bad miss to me is taking myself out of the hole, either out of play or no realistic of getting within 50 yards of the green in reg. I just don't have many of those with a driver any more and easily could with other long clubs.

Mostly just play Richmond area courses and Williamsburg. We have a nice, reasonably priced private suburban course we spend most of our time at. We generally go to the Carolinas for any destination/golf trip type courses.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Speaking for the 15 handicappers, I will say my misses with my driver off the tee are fare more likely to be in play than a 3 wood or long iron and I don't think it is particularly close. I probably average one bad miss on a driver every 2-3 rounds, where I'd probably put one in 5 shots with a 3 wood/long iron out of play or chunked or popped up 75 yards. Today's drivers have such a huge face and are built to go mostly straight. You hear the TV guys talk about pros going to their 3 wood when they really need to shape a shot for that reason.

You may be an anomaly.
This certainly isn't how it's supposed to be or the case for most high handicappers.

The driver is the least forgiving club in the bag and has the most dispersion. A bad drive can and will end up way out of play far more than any other club.
Maybe you've just practiced and mastered your driver before the other clubs.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

You may be an anomaly.
This certainly isn't how it's supposed to be or the case for most high handicappers.

The driver is the least forgiving club in the bag and has the most dispersion. A bad drive can and will end up way out of play far more than any other club.
Maybe you've just practiced and mastered your driver before the other clubs.

I just think there's a difference between dispersion and forgiving. If I went a hit a bunch of balls on a Trackman, and deleted the bad mis-hits, then yeah, I'll have a tighter dispersion on the 3 wood or hybrid than a driver. I'm just saying I'd be deleting more bad 3 wood shots. On the course, that driver dispersion doesn't generally hurt me, but the deleted 3 wood shots would. Sure, there are some exception for holes you have to thread a needle or with a tiny landing area, but those are pretty rare on the courses I play.

[Tron_fdc]

Shot a 47 on the front at Cottonwood, switched from the sim2 max to a sim, and proceeded to shoot a 41 on the back.

Pretty obvious that I can’t hit that enlarged face driver.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I just think there's a difference between dispersion and forgiving. If I went a hit a bunch of balls on a Trackman, and deleted the bad mis-hits, then yeah, I'll have a tighter dispersion on the 3 wood or hybrid than a driver. I'm just saying I'd be deleting more bad 3 wood shots. On the course, that driver dispersion doesn't generally hurt me, but the deleted 3 wood shots would. Sure, there are some exception for holes you have to thread a needle or with a tiny landing area, but those are pretty rare on the courses I play.

Maybe it has to do with the driver being teed up? I think plenty of people struggle hitting a fairway wood. In general though, the longer irons, woods and driver are harder to hit for most of us because it’s further from you. It just leads to more of an issue than a higher iron.

For me, when the driver is on it’s fine. But if it’s not cooperating (could be the user!), it can be a complete disaster. It feels like I’m hitting three from the tee constantly those days. My issue there is not getting the club square, and that’s a function of the longer shaft for me.

[DoubleK]

Jeez guys, we might need to pump the brakes here.

This thread is getting almost as testy as a Sam Bennett thread.

[jayswin]

New Era has his way of speaking that's for sure, but I've actually really enjoyed his and everyone else's posts the last couple of pages. Golf is hard, and this discussion has been eye opening and though provoking.