[Jim Nugent]

Some tour players are there because they can flat out play and some are there because they have learned how to score all their lives. This is why it typically takes a while to win out on tour, not everyone has the proper thinking required. Most of them can hit it, not all of them can manage.

To bring this around to one of our favorite topics, what do Glenn's last two sentences say about how Michelle Wie is doing?

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent:

THis is a difficult point to make.  Of course Jeff chooses the proper golf shot to play better than you or me; and Phil does so better than him, and Jack better than either of them, etc.  And Jack's course management skills as well as skill at staying within his limitations cannot be discounted.  That's why these are all great golfers but Jack was the best.

BUT - It's obvious that these guys have a MUCH more limited universe of possible shot outcomes than us amateurs do.  That is, their worst shot is still going to end up pretty decent.  An amateur like my Dad especially can hit it anywhere... from a complete whiff to a stunning 175 yard arrow-straight line drive.

Try course management with THAT as your universe of possible outcomes....

That's why I continue to maintain that those who CAN course manage successfully and get the best score out of their ability in that scenario are the really really great thinkers in golf.  Of course there are VERY VERY few like my Dad.  So for me it comes down to this:

Damn near all pros think better than damn near all amateurs.

BUT the absolute best thinkers are guys like my Dad.

Does that make any sense?

TH

[Michael Moore]

An amateur like my Dad especially can hit it anywhere... from a complete whiff to a stunning 175 yard arrow-straight line drive.

What's the strategy on the whiff?

Try to miss the ball in the correct place?

[Glenn Spencer]

Brent:

THis is a difficult point to make.  Of course Jeff chooses the proper golf shot to play better than you or me; and Phil does so better than him, and Jack better than either of them, etc.  And Jack's course management skills as well as skill at staying within his limitations cannot be discounted.  That's why these are all great golfers but Jack was the best.

BUT - It's obvious that these guys have a MUCH more limited universe of possible shot outcomes than us amateurs do.  That is, their worst shot is still going to end up pretty decent.  An amateur like my Dad especially can hit it anywhere... from a complete whiff to a stunning 175 yard arrow-straight line drive.

Try course management with THAT as your universe of possible outcomes....

That's why I continue to maintain that those who CAN course manage successfully and get the best score out of their ability in that scenario are the really really great thinkers in golf.  Of course there are VERY VERY few like my Dad.  So for me it comes down to this:

Damn near all pros think better than damn near all amateurs.

BUT the absolute best thinkers are guys like my Dad.

Does that make any sense?

TH

TH,

I usually am, but I am not with you here. From what you say, it sounds like talent is not even a part of the winning equation. I think it is a blanket statement to say that Phil chooses the right shot over Jeff Fortson all the time or most of the time. Maybe Jeff doesn't have quite the belief in his game that Phil does, maybe he doesn't think he belongs in the spotlight, like Phil does. Maybe, the smart way of playing golf on Tour is not the best way to succeed. Try to make birdies for 72 holes and do it 3-4 times a year successfully has worked for many a golfer. I have seen thousands of interviews from guys that just say, ' I try to birdie every hole' they may not mean that word for word, but you get the gist. I will play with a guy named George Moore that has absolutely no talent, none, but he putts better than anybody that doesn't cash checks and he believes in himself and he has the guts to do it at the right time and he thinks really well, when his awful golf swing gets him into trouble.

[Tom Huckaby]

Glenn:

My point is not to compare pros - I was just going along with Brent's example.  You're completely correct there - they are all different and it's way too simple to say what I did.  Of course talent has a LOT to do with winning on tour.  Thinking helps and perhaps is the final piece that separates the champions from the also-rans, but great talent can go a long way also.  Case in point John Daly... two majors speaks loudly, and no one would ever call him a great thinker, at least not in the Nicklaus way.  But again, this is not my issue here.

My point more is the bottom line re golf thinking in general... ie:

Damn near all pros think better than damn near all amateurs.

BUT the absolute best thinkers are guys like my Dad.

Does that make any sense?

Michael - planning for the whiff does make strategic choices difficult.  

[Glenn Spencer]

Glenn:

My point is not to compare pros - I was just going along with Brent's example.  You're completely correct there - they are all different and it's way too simple to say what I did.  Of course talent has a LOT to do with winning on tour.  Thinking helps and perhaps is the final piece that separates the champions from the also-rans, but great talent can go a long way also.  Case in point John Daly... two majors speaks loudly, and no one would ever call him a great thinker, at least not in the Nicklaus way.  But again, this is not my issue here.

My point more is the bottom line re golf thinking in general... ie:

Damn near all pros think better than damn near all amateurs.

BUT the absolute best thinkers are guys like my Dad.

Does that make any sense?

Michael - planning for the whiff does make strategic choices difficult.  

I don't even know what you said at this point, I think I agreed with it, but that whiff comment is post of the year, hands down. I can't stop laughing about it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Glenn - that's cool - glad you liked it.  Hell in terms of my value here, I do believe if I'm worth anything it has to be 98% humor, 2% making any valid point... so this is all good by me.

 

[Garland Bayley]

So you think you're funny Tom? You weren't that guy who went to and bombed at every Last Comic Standing audition were you?

[Brent Hutto]

Huck,

I know what you're saying but I think that relative to the stakes there's no more difference in your dad's whiff vs. 175 pured drive than between a terrible vs. great shot for a Tour player. On average, your dad (or me) is going to whiff or top or chunk a certain number of shots per round. As Mr. Moore points you, you can't really minimize the effect of the whiff by strategizing. The really terrible shots just show up in the final score and you move on.

For me or your dad to get maximum utility out of a shot, we mostly need to take dead aim, clear our mind of self-talk and choose a club we can hit well reasonably often. Details like of which way the rough is growing, the firmness of the green, the tiny little details of contouring in the landing area are sort of below our radar and that's just as well. Generally speaking, the difference between a mediocre shot and a perfect one for me does not reside in correctly accounting for those factors. For a Tour player, not allowing for things like thd lie and the nature of the landing area can result in what would look and sound like a perfectly-executed shot that ends up 20 feet from the hole while a "perfect" shot will quite often end up stiff.

So yes, I'm agreeing that your dad may have to strategize or think about the possibility of topping the ball into a hazard that isn't within 100 yards of being in play for Jeff Fortson. That's a particular thinking skill that is important for my game but not for Jeff's. But if I thought for even one shot about all the factors that a good player is accounting for on a routine approach shot, my head would be spinning so hard I wouldn't be able to take the club back.

And here's the point. I'll bet anything that a Tour player considers all the options that matter for a shot and makes the correct decision way more often than your dad thinks about his options and makes the correct call. Or maybe your dad is a much better thinker than I am. I know that with my teaching pro walking along and thinking out each shot for me over nine holes I can make plenty of awful swings and still shoot four or five under my handicap for that nine. It's really scary, because he only needs to tell me perfectly commonsense things that I already know. I just don't summon up the correct commonsense thought very often when I'm on the golf course.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent - that's all good stuff, and does apply to the average amateur for sure.

Just remember I am talking about a man (or men or women) who can allow for the huge universe of shot possibilities that I mention - from whiff to 175 yard straight bullet - and STILL get the absolute lowest possible score their abilities allow.

I'm also talking about a man (or men or women) who care(s) about his/her scores quite deeply.  Oh, it's not their livlihood, but for them, it really does matter.

So consider this for a second.  You face a shot with a rough straight out up to 130 yards; the next 130-160 a defined hazard with no hope of finding the ball; a sliver of fairway exists to the left no more than 15 yards wide; wide fairway is available 165 yards out.  Your best shot carries 155 at the max.  Your range of dispersion is damn near 180 degrees.  What shot do you play?

 It takes one hell of a thinker to ON PURPOSE chip a 7iron down to a forward tee this low handicapper didn't even see, for the purpose of lessening the carry to 100 yards, so that he can effectively have a fighting chance to be on the fairway lying two.

My Dad did that just last Friday.

THAT is truly great golf thinking, something a guy like Jeff Fortson is never going to have to face.

Oh well.  My point here is not to minimize or denigrate the thinking skills of Jeff or other pro golfers.  Obviously they are great, or they wouldn't be as great at the game as they are.  I just do believe it takes one hell of a creative mind to play the kind of shots my Dad does... And I do believe there are plenty of others like him out there - mainly seniors I'd guess.

TH

[George Pazin]

Here's another take:

Most Tour Pros only do the heavy thinking during the majors and other select big tournaments that really require it (TPC, Ryder Cup, maybe a handful of other tournaments). Otherwise, their best general strategy is just to go for everything, because there are enough guys going low every week that if they don't go for everything and succeed the vast majority of the time, they aren't going to win or place high anyway.

Note that I'm not saying they can't think their way around, but just that it usually isn't in their best interests, due to course setups or whatever.

I think that's why guys like Andy North and Lee Janzen were/are good at winning majors, but not necessarily good at winning birdie fests.

Garland -

In case I wasn't clear, I simply meant that if you're just out having fun every now and then, why not challenge yourself to do something you wouldn't do in a tournament.

[JohnV]

Watch a college event, a Nationwide event, a regular PGA Tour event and the US Open.  Everyone hits it a mile, they all have short games.  What makes the difference between the levels is how they think and execute under ever growing levels of pressure.

Yesterday I officiated at an AJGA event at Tom's Run east of Pittsburgh.  The 4th hole there is an absolute beast of a par 5 that can ruin any round.  It is my bosses' favorite example of a hole where, "You can lose the tournament, but you can't win it."  The smart way to play it is layup, layup, wedge.  That is how I've seen pros play it during US Open qualifying.  The kids play it driver, drop from the hazard, 3-wood, drop from the hazard, wedge.

Oh, and the pros think better on their drops also.

I also remember a US Open Sectional Qualifying at Royal Oaks in Vancouver, Washington.  The third hole is a shortish par 4 that has a green that slopes severely from back to front, being above the hole is terrifying, being hole high is worse.  Brian Henninger, who was on tour at the time, played it by laying up with a wedge short of the green in both rounds and making easy pars.  Nobody else in the qualifier did.  Guess who got the spot.  I'd bet few amateurs ever do that (assuming they can reach the green in 2).

[Garland Bayley]

...Brian Henninger, who was on tour at the time, played it by laying up with a wedge short of the green in both rounds and making easy pars.  Nobody else in the qualifier did.  Guess who got the spot.  I'd bet few amateurs ever do that (assuming they can reach the green in 2).

But, Brian being a local boy, was that thinking, or was it experience.

[Glenn Spencer]

Watch a college event, a Nationwide event, a regular PGA Tour event and the US Open.  Everyone hits it a mile, they all have short games.  What makes the difference between the levels is how they think and execute under ever growing levels of pressure.

Yesterday I officiated at an AJGA event at Tom's Run east of Pittsburgh.  The 4th hole there is an absolute beast of a par 5 that can ruin any round.  It is my bosses' favorite example of a hole where, "You can lose the tournament, but you can't win it."  The smart way to play it is layup, layup, wedge.  That is how I've seen pros play it during US Open qualifying.  The kids play it driver, drop from the hazard, 3-wood, drop from the hazard, wedge.

Oh, and the pros think better on their drops also.

I also remember a US Open Sectional Qualifying at Royal Oaks in Vancouver, Washington.  The third hole is a shortish par 4 that has a green that slopes severely from back to front, being above the hole is terrifying, being hole high is worse.  Brian Henninger, who was on tour at the time, played it by laying up with a wedge short of the green in both rounds and making easy pars.  Nobody else in the qualifier did.  Guess who got the spot.  I'd bet few amateurs ever do that (assuming they can reach the green in 2).

John,

I think you are making the point for us, everyone play it 'wrong' except for one guy.

[JohnV]

...Brian Henninger, who was on tour at the time, played it by laying up with a wedge short of the green in both rounds and making easy pars.  Nobody else in the qualifier did.  Guess who got the spot.  I'd bet few amateurs ever do that (assuming they can reach the green in 2).

But, Brian being a local boy, was that thinking, or was it experience.

Of the 50 or so players that day, at least 40 were local so more guys should have thought of it.  (I mis-remembered earlier, it was a Local Qualifier back in the days when they were 36 holes.)

Glenn, Brian was the only PGA pro in the field that day and was the only one who thought about playing the hole that way.

[Glenn Spencer]

John,

I guess you could take it either way, the other way is that a lot of good players didn't play it 'right' and did Henninger even have enough length do try it? I don't see the correlation between good thinkers and talented players all the time, if this was the case, Fred Funk would win all the time and John Daly would never win. When greats are forced to think(majors) a lot of times it turns out bad-see Mickelson, Bjorn and others, I mean, how does Bjorn double 16 in that situation? Each player is an individual and they all have different attributes. If Jeff Fortson thinks of himself as a cerebral player, then I am sure that he would make the 'right strategic' move just as much as most players out there. It is not as if it is rocket science to figure out that you don't want to short-side yourself and what side of the fairway provides the best angle. The only 'real' thinking those type players are doing is when they are in recovery mode.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You guys, and you know who you are, must be kidding.

The greatest players in the world, The PGA Tour Professionals think and execute their way around a golf course better than anyone else on the planet.

And, they do tend to be conservative if you view the word "conservative" in the context of "percentage play".

[Glenn Spencer]

You guys, and you know who you are, must be kidding.

The greatest players in the world, The PGA Tour Professionals think and execute their way around a golf course better than anyone else on the planet.

And, they do tend to be conservative if you view the word "conservative" in the context of "percentage play".

Patrick,

Execution? Yes. Are you saying that the difference between someone like Jeff Fortson and Phil Mickelson is the way Mickelson thinks on the golf course or thinks in relation to his abilities?

[Tom Huckaby]

You guys, and you know who you are, must be kidding.

The greatest players in the world, The PGA Tour Professionals think and execute their way around a golf course better than anyone else on the planet.

And, they do tend to be conservative if you view the word "conservative" in the context of "percentage play".

I'm not sure if I am one of "you guys."  But in case I am, I do agree that in general, Tour Pros think and excecute their way around a golf course better than anyone else on the planet.  It's their job to do so and that is just obvious.

They just do not - in general - do it any better than my Dad, because they do not have nearly the challenges he has and do not have to think nearly as creatively.

An example I gave is a few posts back.

Thus on the extreme, an amateur like my Dad is a better thinker than a tour pro.  But this is very much on the extreme, and there are very, very few like my Dad.

BTW, I wouldn't say many tour pros think their way around a course all that much better than YOU do, kind sir.   But you too are a rare amateur.

 

[Glenn Spencer]

Patrick,

Why is it that Mickelson ever listens to Bones then? Why would they even have a conversation? Why is it that there are coaches in every single major sport that have never played the game at the highest level. Why would a PGA Tour player ever listen to anyone besides their wife if this was the case?

[Brent Hutto]

Glenn,

Nobody thinks that Phil Mickelson has all the answers automagically just because he's one of the best players in the world. His process of arriving at decisions involves talking to Bones during the round and talking to Rick Smith (or whomever) earlier in the week and who knows what all at various times in between. What we're stating is that PGA Tour players make correct on-course decisions more often than you or I or just about anyone else in the world. The fact that he asks Bones how much the wind will move a 6-iron shot before making a decision doesn't change the outcome of whether that decision is right or wrong.

There are plenty of other Tour players who think well on the course and their process of thinking does not involve talking to their caddie. If I'm not mistaken, Ray Floyd never cared much for his caddie's opinion and he thought his way around the course awfully well.

Tom H,

I misunderstood your original point. I took your dad to be an example of a generic double-digit handicapper who doesn't hit the ball purely very often. I didn't realize you consider him a paragon of on-course smarts. Re-read all my comments as applying to myself (or most of the guys I play with every Saturday and Sunday at 9.30am for that matter). Smart people, not particularly smart decision-makers on the golf course.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Pat:

Up until this year's Nissan Open, I would have agreed with you lock, stock and barrel - but now I'm not so sure.

On Thursday afternoon, I stood beside the 9th as about 10 groups came through and noticed something both strange and interesting.  This is a hole (as you know) whose configuration generally suggests flirting with/carrying the left-side fairway bunker in order to best approach most pin placements (especially front-right).  But on this particular day, there was a brand new, far-left pin as the Tour waited no time in utilizing Tom Marzolf's newly extended putting surface.  Despite the fact that this new pin was virtually behind the left greenside bunker (making it nearly impossible to approach from the fairway's left side), I counted exactly four out of roughly 30 players who hit their tee shots down the virtually unguarded (and, on that day, vastly preferable) right side.

One was Corey Pavin (no shock), another was Trevor Immelman.  The third might have been Robert Damron (I can't recall).  The fourth was Tom Lehman, and given his draw and the fact that his ball finished about a yard from fairway's edge, I'm guessing that was at least something of a miss.  Also, Duval gets half-credit for effort; he at least tried to cut his drive away from the left bunker....but failed.

I'm not sure what to draw from this, exactly, but a whole lot of pretty talented players (including Ernie Els) tried simply to blast it over, or very close to, the left-side bunker, almost as if they didn't even notice that the day's pin position completely suggested otherwise.

It was a puzzling thing to watch....

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent - no hassles man - I didn't exactly present my point very well.    But the bottom line is exactly that:  my Dad is a freak of nature when it comes to on-course smarts.  The plays he makes really do sometimes have to be seen to be believed, as the example cited really did.  Don't get me started on his short game... the man can't loft the ball very well even with a 75 degree wedge, and he knows it, so he plays around all carries with his trusty 7, and damn near never gets down in more than 2 shots, usually managing to get down in 2 anyway because he's also a damn good putter.

In any case he is a rare example - but... the more I play with senior golfers - and I do a lot - the more I think my Dad isn't all that rare after all.  Wisdom does come with age... or at least on the golf course it does to those who embrace it!

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Glenn,

I suspect that Mickelson, as a competitor on the golf course, is stronger, mentally and physically than Jeff Fortson.


Why is it that Mickelson ever listens to Bones then ?

I don't know that he does.
One has to differentiate between seeking reinforcement and getting a different opinion.

I don't think you or anyone knows what goes on in any golfers head at the moment of truth.  

Why would they even have a conversation?

It may be data related, which should not be confused with thinking.  Or, it could be oriented toward reinforcement.

Why is it that there are coaches in every single major sport that have never played the game at the highest level.

Hale Irwin once told me that all the coaches in the world were of little use once the wheels started coming off ON the golf course.

In other sports coaches can relate to and advise players during the course of the competition.  Golf prohibits interfacing during the course of play, so, your analogy is flawed where the rubber meets the road, on the golf course.


Why would a PGA Tour player ever listen to anyone besides their wife if this was the case?

That would be their first mistake.

I don't know that any PGA Tour player listens to anyone during the course of play.

If you've played enough golf you know that everyday is different.  Some days things work, other days they don't.
Some days you have rabbit ears, other days you're tone deaf.

Call it "moods" in or out of the "zone" or whatever, only the golfer knows how they feel, mentally and physically, each day, and over each shot, and, if a golfer listens to others, ignoring what they inherently feel, they won't be on the PGA Tour long.

Listening to someone doesn't mean that you accept their position or rationale, it just means that you're soaking up or rejecting an opinion, which can or can't be fact based.

[Michael Moore]

welcome back to Playing Lessons with the Pros, here on the Golf Channel. Let's catch up with Mr. Huckaby on the seventh tee . . .

"OK, with the pin back there and the wind quartering, this calls for a whiff. Now, there's two basic whiffs - one where you stand up on it and pass the club over the ball like this (demonstrates slowly) and one where you chunk it well behind the ball like this (demonstrates slowly). Now, it's always been my belief that when the ball is teed up, no matter how low, that the "over" whiff is just too risky, so we're going to go with the "chunk" here. Now, to facilitate this, you've gotta put the ball well forward in your stance, maybe three or even four inches. And then we're going to shut the clubface a little bit so that it will really dig in. You don't want it skipping and contacting the ball . . .

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()