How do you beat a golfer who's better than you?

[PAW13]

TP, don't tell me the first time you met Nilon was in 1988 at Cedarbrook.  I know you had been around awhile prior to that because that is the year we won the Hoffner (no bogies for 54 holes).

I am a big believer in you win or lose most matches on the first tee.  Their is nothing wrong with a little gamesmenship (my father may be one of the best and with his winnings at over $2,000.00 a year playing only $2.00 nassaus) and a few comments here and there go along way.

Of course being able to get it up and down at the right time never hurts.  But as Jamie says the best way to wear someone down is keep hitting fairways and greens.

I know that I have lost a few matches because I took the wrong mental approach going into the match.  But I have also won a few that I probably should have lost.  I lost my first Club Championship Final 13 & 12 at the age of 16 to Jeff Kiley, because it started to rain and I was not prepared to play a final match in the rain against the defending champion, but when playing a player that was not my equal in a quarterfinal match a few years ago, I stood on the 14th green one down with a 35 footer for par and if I don't make it I go two down with 4 to play to a 4 handicap who was 2 under at the time, sure enough I make the 35 footer to stay one down and win the next three holes to win 2 & 1. I took the approach in that match that he had to make a mistake at some point and I tried my best not to panic.  I was on the verge on panicking until the putt went in, and I could see it in his eyes that he way expecting to go two up.

The second memory above is also what I like to call the "Tazmainian Reversal"  When you look like you have no chance to win a whole and all of sudden you whole it from a bunker for par and you opponent 3 putts from 10 feet.  That will change a match in no time.  TP, if you recall that is what happened at the Crump with Billy in 1995 on number 12.

[PAW13]

TP, I think with today's technology that it is easier for the weaker player to hang around.  Even with how long McDermott, Costin, Slonis and soon to be Sully again, are hitting it, it is still chipping and putting that wins.  And with the new drivers the short hitters are now hitting 265 instead of 240 and they have less club into greens and I think more confidence in hitting it close.

The only time we are at a disadvantage to these guys is on the 550-575 par 5 where they can get it home and we have to lay up.

Keep in mind that you never missed a fairway and you always had a chance to get the ball on the green or keep it right in front so your up and down chance was a lot easier than from a side bunker.

[TEPaul]

"TP, don't tell me the first time you met Nilon was in 1988 at Cedarbrook.  I know you had been around awhile prior to that because that is the year we won the Hoffner (no bogies for 54 holes)."

Chet:

I'm pretty sure I started right around then. You see that just shows how a guy like you can outfox himself sometimes. At that point you really didn't know me, all you were doing is looking at results. I doubt you and me had ever played each other (actually I think the first time might have been at the Philly Amateur at PCC when you were hitting that teeny little 3 wood about 300 yards and I think you beat me something like 12 and 11 in our 18 hole match!)  

I sort of remember you asked me to play in the Hoffner which surprised me because I doubt you'd ever seen me play. But the good news is I set you up for one of your famous 54 hole "Better Ball One Balls" by not helping you one single time in the entire tournament!

[Lou_Duran]

PAW13 is 100% correct.  You beat them before you hit your drives on the first tee.  Give me enough strokes and I'll play anyone for a limited amount of money (big money players have different strategies to find their opponents choke points and few have to do with how they play the hole).  Knowing yourself and your opponent is more important than your familiarity with the golf course.

[TEPaul]

"The only time we are at a disadvantage to these guys is on the 550-575 par 5 where they can get it home and we have to lay up."

Aw, bull-ticky on that. First of all, you can definitely hit those 575 yard par 5s in two. For me though, I never saw a par 5 I could hit in two but I also never saw one that I couldn't sneak up on in three before it saw me coming and not birdie either. The hell with these young studs who hit short iron second shots into long par 5s. I'll take my chances hitting low half skulled 2 irons in there close in three and watching those young studs get so pissed the chances are better than not they might 3 putt and lose to me!

[PAW13]

TP, remember I am 40 now and I can't hit those par 5 unless I have a gale force wind behind me.  

I think the reason I called you was Nilon, and you helped me alot more than you remember.  I believe it was you that got it up and on 18 the final round after I hit the clubhouse off the tee.

[TEPaul]

"I believe it was you that got it up and on 18 the final round after I hit the clubhouse off the tee."

Chet, you know you really do have one helluva memory, no doubt about that. You're right about that last putt though. I guess you thought you'd play Superman on the ultimate hole of the tournament and go right over the clubhouse onto the green in a single bound. That wasn't all that short a par putt for me and I remember thinking this young stud in one fell-swoop has just screwed up one of the best 54 hole "Better Ball One Balls" on the last hole AND ALSO that it was REALLY unfair of him to lean on me to THIS EXTENT in a tournament , and at that point of all things! Either that or I must have realized if I was ever going to help you one time in a whole 54 hole tournament this would probably be the best time to do it since there wasn't any more!  

How could the both of us be scrambling for par on a little nothing hole like that anyway?  

[PAW13]

That is what happens on the final hole of a golf tournament that you have a chance to win and your are still at the point in your career where you are still trying to learn how to win.

[TEPaul]

Chet:

Is that clubhouse at Sandy Run OB or is it in bounds like apparently the clubouse at PVGC is on #4? The reason I ask is if that Sandy Run clubhouse is in bounds I have no doubt whatsoever you could've played your second shot off that clubhouse and made birdie on that last hole and you wouldn't have had to lean all over me like you did to win that WHOLE DAMN TOURNAMENT for you!  

[paul cowley]

OK Tom...i'm ready to dust the maybe five times this year clubs off , if you'll come down to play .....i'm going to try to play my shots five yards ahead of yours .....either the fort or Fernandina National Muni Whatever , your choice [or both].

[Mike_Young]

You can't.  If you beat him then on that day you were better than him.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I know that Ran Morrissett put you up to this in the desperate hope that some how, someone had a legitimate answer.

Sadly, for him, there is no answer.

The superior player will beat the inferior player.
Are there exceptions ?  Sure, but they're rare.

And, as playing conditions deteriorate, the superior player will adapt and excell where the inferior player will falter.

The ZERO handicap didn't get there by winning the lottery.
He practiced and played his ass off.  He knows all the shots and has a well rounded game.  AND, he's probably "tournament
tough", with that extra edge that comes from playing competitive golf at the highest levels.

I hate to burst some bubbles, but, he's also seen it all, the gamesmanship, sandbagging, etc., etc..  If you guys think that ZERO handicappers are dolts, who just get lucky on the golf course, you're in for a big surprise.

How many times did you hear of Lee Trevino, Doug Sanders, Sam Snead, Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods getting hustled ?

How about Michael Jordan and other high handicappers ?
Did you ever hear of them getting hustled.
The stories of high handicappers who thought that they could beat ZERO handicappers or good pros are legion.

A true ZERO is a hell of a player whose golfclubs speak for themselves.  Higher handicappers have egos that they sometimes mistake for talent.

A ZERO handicapper tends to be a purist, playing by USGA rules.  Higher handicappers tend to have more then 14 clubs and play a much looser game.

I've seen 8, 12, 16 and 20 handicappers play in tournaments where the first thing they object to is the requirement to play by USGA rules.  When forced to do so, most are already at a disadvantage.

For forty years I've played in a game that doesn't permit gimmees.  6 inches or one foot, you putt it out.  You'd be amazed at what happens to golfers entering our game when they find out that "in the leather" really means that that's where they're going to get the money to pay off their bets, in their wallet.  

ZERO handicappers tend to play the ball down most or all of the time.  High handicappers don't.  When a high handicap is prevented from improving his lie, it puts a pressure on his game that he is unable to handle because he doesn't have the shots, the game for those conditions.

ZERO handicappers are used to the pressure to perform due to their tournament experience.  Tournament golf elevates good golfers to another level.

Do you or anyone think that a high handicapper would have beaten Ken Bakst, George Zahringer, Jerry Courville or Jeff Thomas shortly after their USGA Mid-Amateur win ?

The mind set of the ZERO handicapper, the tournament tough player is so much sharper than the higher handicapper that it makes it difficult, if not impossible for the inferior player to beat a ZERO handicapper.

And, in most of the cases, length is the friend of the ZERO handicapper, not the higher handicapper.  College scholarship golfers are consistently carrying the ball farther then Palmer and Nickaus hit their drives in their hayday.

The only instance that I ever heard of where an inferior player beat a clearly superior player was at a club near you in Pennsylvania, at Innescrone.  But, that was one of those rare occassions that happens every century or so, like that Tsunami.

[Bob_Huntley]

Pat,

Here endeth the first and only lesson. The scratch man winneth. 99.999% of the time.

Bob

[DMoriarty]

I'd be curious to know from those with David M's point of view just how much of the golf that they play using those tactics is in either matches where their own money is on the line or in tournaments where there are consequences for their mistakes?

Geoffrey, despite TomP's delusions to the contrary none of this was ever about how I play, dont play, or want to play.  It was about the design of courses with multiple routes to the hole for varying skill levels.  

As for your question, there is usually some amount of money on the line when I play, while the amount varies greatly I tend to be more focused better if the amount is greater.   Whether I try to hit it left on No. 2, depends on the circumstances . . . I usually intend to hit it somewhat left, but in matches 've played it both ways for both high and low amounts of money.  

I dont play in many stroke tournaments.  In the flighted and handicapped men's club tournament at Rustic I hit it down the left side and parred on the first day, hit it down the middle-right and barely bogeyed the next day.  

[Steve Lang]

 

I don't think this thread is really about the ZERO vs the semi bogey or worse universe of players, its about that perception of what "better" really means in a match between two players of "relatively" the same overall ability..

Being relatively better or poorer at the game's many facets over the course and during a round and match make golf a very competitive, and in my book, the most fun to play game around.  No one is perfect or should expect to be so.

I've beaten better players by not being afraid of them or the course.  I will give, but I don't ask for strokes.

[Joe Hancock]

....I tend to be more focused better if the amount is greater.  

Dan Kelly,

Could you please pop in long enough to decipher what David just said?

Just busting your chops, Dave. No harm, no foul!

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lang,

If their respective abilities are just about the same, then the outcome will be just about the same.

[TEPaul]

"Geoffrey, despite TomP's delusions to the contrary none of this was ever about how I play, dont play, or want to play.  It was about the design of courses with multiple routes to the hole for varying skill levels."

David:

While it may appear to you I'm trying to focus on your play and game I'm really not or not that I'm taking some sort of inordinate interest in your game. I guess I ask you about how you play sometimes or I remark about how I think you might play simply because I'm trying to figure out how and why you think the way you do about things like strategies that clearly you're very interested in academically, intellectually or even, God forbid, in a practical way.

I do completely understand that many on here do not like to talk about their games or what they've ever done with them or to hear about others games because it all might come off as egotistical or whatever. I've never really thought about this much before but it very well might be a better idea and certainly a more educational idea for all of us on here if we do talk more about how we play and particularly why.

The reason I say that is it sure has been apparent to me in the years I've played golf just how different the games are of players on the same levels!!! I've often wondered how and certainly how much various architects have ever taken that particularly startling fact into consideration in some of the precise ways they do design courses, most certainly including the inherent strategies of the courses.

I've seen both scratchmen and particularly bogeymen play such vastly different types and styles of games including vastly different distance considerations and capabilities and strengthes and weaknesses, it's just amazing to me, and I can't imagine how completely understanding that fact couldn't help but increase the understanding of golf architecture for all of us on here.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Sad to come to this discussion so late. Most has already been said. Booby Jones' comments should not be ignored. No one ever went into a match with him thinking he was the worse player, but he lost a good few until his 'old man par' revelation. Steady is annoying..
My only golfing claim to infamy is that I was a pretty good match player from age 14 to 17.
The two keys, I thought, were letting your opponent think that he should beat you, and hitting to the green first, the second not difficult for a sneaky short hitter like me. Steady is annoying..

[JESII]

I think Steve is right, this thread got talking about the one in a thousand 10 handicapper beating the scratch head up, while the original intent may was, how do you beat sombody who is just a bit better (say 3 beating 0)?

Steady patient play puts the pressure on the other to perform up to his full capabilities to beat you and this pressure is often difficult to take. Hitting first into greens is an interesting approach as well, I used just that approach in winning an important match a few years ago (although I wouldn't say my opponent was better) and it seemed to really rattle him. This tact requires you to perform though, because if you start missing greens he will certainly become more confident, and that is the opposite of our goal.

Jim

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

I think it's possible that you and others are laboring under a conflict in principles.

How does a 10, 15, 20, 25 or higher handicap play STEADY ?

How do the above golfers CONTROL the ability to turn their games ON and OFF the STEADY mode ?

It's beyond the realm of their ability.

[George Pazin]

Since Jim was referencing matches between individuals of similar handicap, I would think he simply means steady in a relative sense, something that is within the realm of every golfer, except, perhaps, the rank beginner.

 

[Bob_Huntley]

Pat,

This thread illustrates the degree of self-deception that occurs in the breast of every golfer. If a high handicapper could play "steady" he would probably not remain in double digits. It is the unexplained foozle,sclaff, shank,duck hook, wicked slice, pop-up, worm burner or any of the other swing faults that crop up that make it impossible for such a person to beat the scratch man.

Let me see two players hit shots out of a bunker and I can generally tell you who will win the match.

[George Pazin]

Pat,

This thread illustrates the degree of self-deception that occurs in the breast of every golfer. If a high handicapper could play "steady" he would probably not remain in double digits. It is the unexplained foozle,sclaff, shank,duck hook, wicked slice, pop-up, worm burner or any of the other swing faults that crop up that make it impossible for such a person to beat the scratch man.

Let me see two players hit shots out of a bunker and I can generally tell you who will win the match.

While I certainly agree with the second part, I can give you an example of a golfer who played steady but was a relatively high handicapper - me!

Back when I was just starting, in fact, about 1 year after I started, I decided early one summer to only play my with irons -I didn't even carry woods. I played one Saturday morning with 3 highly entertaining gentlemen, my favorite of which was an Irish fellow in his 60s. I hit my irons very solidly and consistently at that time (don't really know what's happened since) and I would routinely hit my 3 or 4 iron off the tee about 200-220. I outdrove his driver on most of the holes. But, as solid as I was, I would usually just miss the green with my approach shots. My short game then was steady, but really only the level of a 90s shooter. I would chip or pitch to about 8 or 10 feet, and then usually 2 putt. It is really difficult to score low in this fashion, but you can certainly play steady. My Irish friend, however, would hit 3 woods, 5 woods or 7 woods on approach shots, usually onto the green and just slightly off. He chipped and putted his way to a 78, while I dinked my way around in a 92 or 93, to the best of my recollection. It wasn't pretty, but it was pretty steady. I don't think I lost a ball all day, which is rare for me and probably most high handicappers.

The funny thing was all 3 of these guys were amazed at the distances I was hitting my irons - I was routinely 2-3 irons longer than them on the par 3s - and didn't even notice my relatively poor score. I even gave one a tip on the 18th tee - he asked for help, I would never offer help unless asked - and he said, "Why did you wait for the 18th hole?" after ripping a solid 3 wood down the fairway. I responded with, "Have you seen what I've been shooting? Why would I offer advice to you, when you're beating me by 10 strokes?!

That's where people get confused with the term "better". I like Mike Young's simple post - if you won that day, you were the better player. Back in old geek days as a math major, we'd have called his post "elegant".

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Huntley,

I believe the dictionary defines "steady" as a scratch handicap or better.

I believe that Ben Hogan indicated that it was his desire to control/reduce his misses, his erratic play that led to his success.  In my limited experience scratch handicappers and better, tend to be pretty steady, having all the shots under all the conditions.

Some golfers, like Joe McBride were tenacious competitors who seemed to improve their game as they marched toward the finals.  I do feel that some golfers are tournament tough and that some golfers are fierce, if not feroucious competitors, with or without the talent to go with it.
And, therein lies the mental element in golf.  The will to win.

George Pazin,

Did you have a BET with them at the start of the round, or was it just a friendly game of golf ?

Pressure to perform can do funny things to everyone.