[Michael Moore]

There is just no point in taking risk to get the difference between 100 and 150 or so on the approach.  I will never gamble to get 100 yards in, as opposed to 150.  I will gamble to get 170, as opposed to 250.  That's just a general theory I have.  

This an extremely interesting theory.

I think that many golfers who can whack an eight iron onto the green from 150 yards are terrified of missing badly from 200 yards, and count me among them.

What are the architectural implications of this? We talk a great deal about how far things are from the tee, but less about how far they are from the green.

Do the unsightly hybrid clubs have an impact on architecture?

[Tom Huckaby]

Michael - I'm not sure if you're getting shivas' point.

He said he WON'T gamble to get from 150 (8-9iron for him) to 100 (lob wedge).  He said he WILL gamble to get to 170 (7iron) from 250 (outside range of 2iron/3wood).

That is, his 250-170 is like your 200-150, more or less.  Each of you don't want that long shot because you have no faith you can find the green with it, feel you can handle the shorter shot and find the green, thus you might take the risk.

In any case, you ask great questions - as more and more golfers CAN confidently hit a high soft-landing 200 yard shot into a green - due to hybrid clubs plus the longer ball - that has to have a large effect on the difficulty of courses as well.  The impact on architecture would depend on how this is treated.  I don't think we're at the point where that shot is EASY for anyone but the higher-skilled player, even now - but it is something to think about.

TH

[JESII]

That strategy of Shivas' simply illustrates a relative flaw in his game. He is as confident in making par or birdie from 150 as he is from 100. He should be more confident from 100 and therefore likely to take a risk to get there.

[Tom Huckaby]

JES - that was my take as well, and the reason why I share this theory is precisely because I am no better from 100 than I am from 150.  I asked shivas' the same question in the other thread, and I expect it has some effect with him as well.  

But wouldn't one have to be a GREAT wedge player to make substantial risk to get from 150 to 100 worth taking? Remember we're talking bringing a very high number into play - that is flirting with OB, unplayable, etc. to get to 100.

TH

[Paul Payne]

TH,

I agree with Shiva and the points you made about Hybrids.

I am one who bought TWO of those ugly suckers and they have changes my game. It is not just the distance (I am not good with a 4 or 3 iron) but I can hit hybrids higher and land them softer. Now I am not that worried about shots from 200 yards in, so I don't worry about getting absolutely as close as I can. I worry about what the shot requires.

I never thought I could ever even dream that before hybrids.

[Tom Huckaby]

Paul - count me in on that - I've used hybrids for a long time - it finally dawned on me that it was silly not to when I found out on here that a truly great player Jamie Slonis uses them.  If they're good enough for him, who am I trying to kid using standard low irons?  So the equivalent of a two and three iron hybrid have been in my bag for a few years now.

And you're right - the effect is that the 200 yard shot becomes less scary, less of a potential round-ruiner just due to the distance.  One can feel confident he will make solid contact, will get somewhere near the green... and the good ones will go high and land soft and actually stay on the green - yes, pretty much only a pipe-dream before.

And I say that as a halfway decent player (5 hdcp.) who actually was considered GOOD with low irons.

TH

[Brian Noser]

Tom,

I think of my self as having a good short game along with good wedges. This comes from scrambling to hit GIR. I would take the risk to get inside 100 yards all most all the time. I feel I can get it much closer from there then from 150. My thresh hold for confidence is about 175 yards though this is about a 7 iron for me. Anything over that I will for sure take the risk without question.  As others said as did Shivas, this works for him, it is a good theory to have a plan but everyones plan is most likely different.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brian - sure, everyone is going to have different distances here.  Guys like you and shivas who hit the ball a ton have far different thresholds without a doubt.

I think the main point is this:  how much is it ever going to be "worth it" to get to where one has a wedge in?  If one is a great wedge player, then the risk is more taken; if one is not, it's not worth it.  Shivas and I fall in the latter camp - I'm just wondering though how good one has to be with wedges - or BAD with 7-8iron - to change this.

Of course it also changes big time when one can get nearer the green - I'd say damn near everyone is better where they can chip (say 20 yards in) than from 100 or higher.  Thus a risk to get to that close becomes worth it for a LOT more people.

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

I wonder if Shivas will lay back to 150 on an infinitely wide hole just to guarantee a better angle.  When does the risk become great enough to lay up, 1 in 5 balls lost..1 in 10..1 in 20..Thank God I'm a match play kind of guy and don't have to struggle with this card and pencil mentality.

[Paul Payne]

TH,

Jamie Slonis eh?

I've got to pick my role models better.

[John Kavanaugh]

Fine,  so when do you consider risk real...what odds against do you need to club down.

[Tom Huckaby]

TH,

Jamie Slonis eh?

I've got to pick my role models better.

 
This subject did come up before, and man when he posted it was like a freakin' bolt of lightning for me.

[David Ober]

I will do whatever I can to get between 70 and 110, assuming that the penalty for getting there is reasonable. In other words: I won't lay up to a TINY area, if that tiny area is bordered by water or OB. However, if the area is reasonably sized, I want to be 70-110 (or closer) whenever possible.

Also keep in mind that when one is "laying up," they are usually doing so with something between a 3-iron and a 7-iron, so obviously if I'm going to lay up with my 7-iron, then the area to which I'm hitting can be smaller than if I'm hitting to it with my 3-iron.

[Tom Huckaby]

David - I guess the only way I differ is that I won't tend to take lost-ball type risk at all to get to 100 if there is NONE at 150 (ie how the new #7 Rustic was described - I haven't seen it post-flood).  If the risk is the same all along, then heck yeah I'll go ahead and hit the longer club to get closer....

Which brings up another point relevant here:  am I alone in that driver is my most consistent, straightest club now?

That is, the huge drivers we have today are SO damn easy to hit strong and straight, it changes the thinking here... Driver goes about as straight as any other club these days, so why not go ahead and hit it?

TH

[David Ober]

David - I guess the only way I differ is that I won't tend to take lost-ball type risk at all to get to 100 if there is NONE at 150 (ie how the new #7 Rustic was described - I haven't seen it post-flood).  If the risk is the same all along, then heck yeah I'll go ahead and hit the longer club to get closer....

Which brings up another point relevant here:  am I alone in that driver is my most consistent, straightest club now?

That is, the huge drivers we have today are SO damn easy to hit strong and straight, it changes the thinking here... Driver goes about as straight as any other club these days, so why not go ahead and hit it?

TH

Wow, a kindred spirit! I'm also as straight with my driver as with any other club in my bag, so I often hit it on holes where my fellow competitors look at me like I'm crazy!!!

[David Ober]

I'll extrapolate on the general theory:

1.  The difference in birdies from 100 yards, as opposed to from 150 yards is fractional.  Let's say I'll make birdie 1 in 4 times from the 100.  Well, I'll probably make birdie 1 in 4.3 times from the 150 or whatever.

2.  HOWEVER, the odds of me butchering the hole with the driver to get to the 100 are much, much higher than they are if I just whip out the 3 iron and hit it 210 to the fat part of the fairway, where there is no trouble.

3.  On the hole in question, #7 at RC, that's exactly what I did.  I had the purportedly "worse" angle, from the right side of the fairway to a center/back pin on the back shelf.  Dave Kelly had the green light shot.  I hit it to about 20 feet, and made a pretty standard tap in par.  

4.  The key here is really not the incremental better chance at birdie.  It's the HUGE increase in the risk of taking an unplayable or lost ball that is the issue.  It's probably a 1 in 100 shot with the 3 iron to an 80 yard wide fairway.  It's 1 in 10 when I'm trying to draw it 275 to a peninsula/finger of fairway with gunch all down the left and a wash that angles into play starting at about 230, so anything fanned right is in the wash and anything overcooked left might be lost.

5.  Now, there are other times when the difference between 100 and 150 is worth the "risk".  If there's a bunker at 250 to clear, for example, I don't view that as "gambling" to get over.  Other guys might.  If the fairway opens up at 260+, I'll hit the driver because that's a risk-neutral shot (tight landing area with the 3 iron/wider landing area with the driver).  Another example might be if there's nothing "behind" the 100 yard landing area, so I can nuke it an extra 30 yards and not be in trouble, then it might be worth it (but usually not).

6.  In screw-around play, I will pretty much always take driver risk if it gives me the ability to shave a full shot -- ie, reachable par 5s and driveable par 4s.  In tournaments, I balance the likelyhood of shaving a shot vs. taking a big number in search of ego gratification, however, and often hit irons to keep it in play.  

7.  We've all heard the pros say " you can't win the tournament on Thusday, but you certainly can lose it".  Well, basically that's my theory on driving.  You can't MAKE birdies and pars with driver, but you can certainly can blow yourself out of any chance of making them with driver.    

Unless you are a god awful wedge player, then your number 1 point above is WAAAAAYYYYY off. What's your handicap/playing ability, and what kind of putter are you?

[Tom Huckaby]

David - thanks for that - I was beginning to think I was crazy also, as do a lot of my playing partners as I hit driver after driver after driver.  But man it is just the easiest club to hit... OK maybe the hybrid goes a LITTLE straighter, but man the hole has to be tighter than anything for me to favor it over the driver.

And you have shivas pegged - crappy wedge player, off and on putter.  But... I think his #1 does have merit.  All crap aside, the man is a good player, GREAT when he gets things rolling.  And his take on birdies from those distances I find to be right on and not only for him.  Is the 0.3 more birdies worth the risk?  That's what gets weighed.

Intersting also, it takes a very unique golf hole - like #7 Rustic - for all of this even to be considered.

TH

[A.G._Crockett]

David - I guess the only way I differ is that I won't tend to take lost-ball type risk at all to get to 100 if there is NONE at 150 (ie how the new #7 Rustic was described - I haven't seen it post-flood).  If the risk is the same all along, then heck yeah I'll go ahead and hit the longer club to get closer....

Which brings up another point relevant here:  am I alone in that driver is my most consistent, straightest club now?

That is, the huge drivers we have today are SO damn easy to hit strong and straight, it changes the thinking here... Driver goes about as straight as any other club these days, so why not go ahead and hit it?

TH

I think that this SO true that it has caused us to miss at least one key point in the endless tech/Flog discussions here.  I know that for my game, the LEAST risky choice off the tee is usually driver; don't know why that shouldn't be true on Tour either.

I'll postulate a hole:  Longish par 4 (whatever that means to each player) that doglegs; you can bite of as much as you dare.

Trouble to whichever side you fear the most, beginning at around 130 out, but nothing to there.  Landing area is average width, but the rough is penal.  In order to get inside 200, you have to hit at least a 5 wood.  To get to 150, you have to hit a 3 wood.  Driver will get you to 120 or less.

Difficult green; if you miss, up and down is unlikely.

For me, I'm hitting driver EVERY time!  I have a better chance of avoiding the rough AND the trouble with driver in 2006.  I really, really believe this.  IT IS MUCH, MUCH LESS ABOUT GETTING TO 120 OR LESS THAN IT IS ABOUT AVOIDING TROUBLE, AND DRIVER IS THE BEST WAY TO AVOID TROUBLE NOWADAYS!

If that isn't true for you, you need a new driver.  My epiphany was after getting a 3 and 5 woods PERFECTLY matched to my driver, and realizing that I still hit the driver straighter.  (Forget longer for a minute; I mean STRAIGHTER!)  That the driver is longer is a bonus.  It's a very nice bonus, but a bonus.  If you want to avoid trouble off the tee that doesn't involve going too far, then flail away.

BTW, I am now willing to admit that this situation is NOT good for GCA in the long-run, a huge admission for me to make.  However, it's where we are at this moment.

[Tom Huckaby]

AGC - I remember when you posted about this before - and you were right on then, right on now.  Gosh I don't even have a matched 3-wood, either - I've kept loyal to an old steel relic.  I do hit it very well off the deck, thus it stays in the bag.  But for tee shots, no way is it used for straightness purposes - I can hit my huge driver way more consistently, way straighter.

And yes, the effect on GCA of all of this can't be good.  But yes, it is the state of the game.

Shivas - your choices as a big hitter are different from mine - no hassles there.  I can't imagine ever not hitting driver on 16 or 18 Rustic, from the back tees anyway.  But I can see where you might not, because going through the fairway is an issue for you on each.  It's not an issue on either for me.  Each being a pretty long golf hole also, heck the thought there for me is to get to 150 where I can feel pretty good about hitting the green.  Thus for me this is a 200/150 choice... without much risk given as I say my driver goes straighter than any other clun anyway.

12?  Heck I can imagine hitting anything from 8iron to driver depending on wind and pin position.  I do LOVE that golf hole.

TH

[David Ober]

Dave, we played the same hole on the same day to the same pin.  What did you do?  Did you try to hook it to that little peninsula of fairway long and left?  Or did you find the fat part of the fairway and play to that, knowing that if the hole is 362, and you hit it 210 off the tee, you've got a straightforward approach with no risk off the tee?  I couldn't see the purportedly better angle being worth the risk of an overcook or a hard push into that bisecting wash.

My game in a nutshell?  I fluctuate between 2-ish and 6-ish these days, with little hot streaks of 20-year-old-and-fading-fast muscle memory where I can rob people blind for a week or so at either number.  And I think it's fair to say that my wedge game is a disgrace, given the rest of my game.  I'm probably about a 10 handicap from 60-120 yards.  

What did I do? I bogeyed the hole!!! :lol:

I looked at the sign that said "220 to the little bush on the right, took dead aim with my 2-hybird, and hit it right at the little sucker, and damned if my ball wasn't literally IN THE BUSH when I got up there.

Next time I play I will hood/hook a 2-hybrid around to the left, leaving myself with sand wedge or PW to the green. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES will I try to carry the wash on that hole. I'm simply not long enough, nor do I hit the ball high enough to do so. I carry the ball only 245/250 in the winter time and rely on lots of roll with my driver to get it out there to 270ish most of the time, so driver isn't even possible for me on that hole.

Now, on to your "point number 1" in your original statment:

Tour players average around 7% of the distance they are away from the flag on all approach shots.

For instance:

100 yard shot = 7 yard average distance from pin on approach, or 21 feet from the pin.

150 yard shot = 10.5 yard average distance from pin on approach, or 31.5 feet from the pin.

200 yard shot = 14 yard average distance from pin on approach or 42 feet from the pin.

You will make many, many more birdies from an average of 21 feet vs. from an average of 31.5 feet.

Now that is for professional golfers playing on the PGA Tour. My game is very similar to theirs from 70-110, but gets comparitively worse the farther out I go, and that's true for many very low handicap amateurs, but not all.

My question to you is why would your game be any different? Are you really no better from 100 yards than you are from 150? If so, you would be a rare golfer indeed. What is it in your wedge game that causes you to suffer? Is it technique? Confidence? Are you sure you are perceiving your game accurately from 150 vs. your game from 100?

Now your point about birdies made from the two distances might be correct, assuming that you make very few birdies. Do you? Still, though, I would challenge you to start keeping track of where you birdies come from. Simply mark down and track each birdie you make and the distance from the pin you were on your approach and then look at the data after 40 or 50 rounds and see what's what.

You willing to do that?  

[Brent Hutto]

Even way down at my end of the food chain (20-handicap) what Mr. Crockett says is true. For me the only reason not to hit driver on any hole over about 250 yards is if the driver can fly or roll into some kind of trouble that another club won't reach.

Leaving aside the fact that my two drivers have 380cc and 460cc clubheads and therefore hit it straight with 'most any decent swing, there's also the fact that I hit the driver more often than any club other than the putter and sand wedge. Plus the face on these drivers is so tall you can tee the ball way up off the ground and totally remove any chance of a fat shot. With low-profile fairway woods nowadays you've got to tee it up about a millimeter off the ground to keep from skying it.

[A.G._Crockett]

Leaving aside the fact that my two drivers have 380cc and 460cc clubheads and therefore hit it straight with 'most any decent swing, there's also the fact that I hit the driver more often than any club other than the putter and sand wedge.

This is a key, key point that I forgot.  If I have hit driver 8 or 10 times already in the round, and I come to a questionable situation, does it make more sense to hit a club I haven't hit all day, or hit my driver again?  Easy choice.

[Brent Hutto]

Leaving aside the fact that my two drivers have 380cc and 460cc clubheads and therefore hit it straight with 'most any decent swing, there's also the fact that I hit the driver more often than any club other than the putter and sand wedge.

This is a key, key point that I forgot.  If I have hit driver 8 or 10 times already in the round, and I come to a questionable situation, does it make more sense to hit a club I haven't hit all day, or hit my driver again?  Easy choice.

For high-handicappers the other key question is "What if you hit it in trouble with the shorter club?" which is often ignored in your decision-making. For David Toms to tee off with a long iron or 5-wood instead of driver is to virtually guarantee the ball in good shape, albeit a long way from the green. For you or I, taking a layup club off the tee carries a non-ignorable risk of a bad swing. Nothing worse than "playing smart" (by which I really mean being chicken) and ending up in a bad lie in the rough, with a tree enroaching on your line, 230 yards from the green. It's hard not the think "Geez, what are you going to do now Mr. Brainiac?" after a shot like that.

[A.G._Crockett]

Leaving aside the fact that my two drivers have 380cc and 460cc clubheads and therefore hit it straight with 'most any decent swing, there's also the fact that I hit the driver more often than any club other than the putter and sand wedge.

This is a key, key point that I forgot.  If I have hit driver 8 or 10 times already in the round, and I come to a questionable situation, does it make more sense to hit a club I haven't hit all day, or hit my driver again?  Easy choice.

For high-handicappers the other key question is "What if you hit it in trouble with the shorter club?" which is often ignored in your decision-making. For David Toms to tee off with a long iron or 5-wood instead of driver is to virtually guarantee the ball in good shape, albeit a long way from the green. For you or I, taking a layup club off the tee carries a non-ignorable risk of a bad swing. Nothing worse than "playing smart" (by which I really mean being chicken) and ending up in a bad lie in the rough, with a tree enroaching on your line, 230 yards from the green. It's hard not the think "Geez, what are you going to do now Mr. Brainiac?" after a shot like that.

Brent,
I really believe that the idea about Toms hitting the 5 wood in play is less true than we have imagined, or than was the case before huge drivers.  While he is clearly less likely the you or I to make a horrible swing with the 5 wood that subverts his "play safe" strategy, the tolerances under which he performs are vastly tighter as well, so the relative penalties are probably somewhat equalized.  I have come to believe, with no way of proving it, that hitting driver is the percentage play AT ALL LEVELS of the game including on Tour.  We attribute it to a quest for distance, when often it is about control, with distance as a happy by-product.  There is so much technology in a 460 cc clubhead wiith the correct shaft that I have a vastly better chance of hitting it straight than a smaller fairway wood no matter whether I am David Toms, A.G. Crockett, or Brent Hutto.  

This belief is what has finally brought me around to the idea that something probably has to be done to counteract technology.  I am not sure what that is, but I don't think it is the ball.  That is too simple of an answer.

[Brent Hutto]

You're probably correct about the modern drivers.

In all likelihood, when we see David Toms or Vijay Singh tee off with a fairway wood it's because they want to intentionally curve the ball. Workability is really the only thing they give up by playing a 400cc+ driver.

ObGCA: It must be damnably hard to build a course that more or less forces a Tour quality player to try and hit a curving shot with a 3-wood when they have the option of bombing it straight as a string and 280 yards in the air with that driver they hit 10-12 times a round.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()