[Tom_Doak]

Although, the hardest one for me to mentally accept basically relying on one shot shape only and playing for that dispersion pattern. I'm used to working the ball both ways. So, when my eye sees a fade because either the green or fairway (as Tom mentioned above) is curved or slanted that way, then it is very hard for me to trust myself to play my natural draw and its dispersion pattern. I keep thinking I'll blast it through long left.

I started to write that surely someone like Bob Rotella would tell you to stick with your instinct there instead of fighting it, because the doubt is going to cause your shot dispersion to go way up if you are trying to stick with a tactic you don't fully believe.


But I read your post wrong; I was thinking you meant you always favored a draw and had doubts when everything asked for a fade.  You're saying your natural tendency is to follow the lie of the ball, and it's tough for you when you look at the green and see it rewards the opposite ball flight.  In that case, I think the sports psychs would say to hit the shot you are most comfortable hitting, that what's up at the green doesn't matter as much as your confidence does.  Of course, Broadie's statistics cannot be broken down that way.

[Steve Kline]

Short siding isn't so much about slopes. It's more about the amount of green to work with you. I'm pretty sure for Broadie and Fawcett, short siding is missing the green on the side of the green the flag is on regardless of the slope involved because the strokes gained is worse when chipping from even a short distance than putting from 40 or 50 feet.


Fawcett has a video on that too I think. Although some of these you might only be able to see if you have paid for the app (which isn't cheap).

[Thomas Dai]

Some fascinating points here.
One aspect of tour-pro/TV golf is the local rules in operation and how they effect (lower) scores so I presume such are reflected in statistical analysis. And of course some of the (non-local) Rules are changing from 1st Jan next year which could have an effect too.
Free drops from signs, stands, spectator facilities, walkways, TV paraphernalia etc etc and the like when they hit the ball to the outer edges of the playing corridor. Without such free drops etc their scores would be higher, as they would if there weren’t spectators etc around to find their errant shots.
Sometimes the drops they receive can be extremely player friendly. Plus they are pretty savvy at discussing/engaging a potential free drop. Not many ever seem to be refused.
All such I would suggest is likely to help Mr Wide-bomber more than Mr Down-the-middle. And in the past free drops weren’t so prevalent and ghastly lies, even lost balls, more likely if players strayed well wide.
They also play lift-clean-place pretty frequently and the bunkers are usually exceptionally well raked before their ball enters one.
So, lots of aspects, and I’m sure there are more, where their game is more favourable (easier?) to that played by Joe or Jane the average amateur. And all will contribute to lower scores.
Atb

[Steve Kline]

Although, the hardest one for me to mentally accept basically relying on one shot shape only and playing for that dispersion pattern. I'm used to working the ball both ways. So, when my eye sees a fade because either the green or fairway (as Tom mentioned above) is curved or slanted that way, then it is very hard for me to trust myself to play my natural draw and its dispersion pattern. I keep thinking I'll blast it through long left.

I started to write that surely someone like Bob Rotella would tell you to stick with your instinct there instead of fighting it, because the doubt is going to cause your shot dispersion to go way up if you are trying to stick with a tactic you don't fully believe.


But I read your post wrong; I was thinking you meant you always favored a draw and had doubts when everything asked for a fade.  You're saying your natural tendency is to follow the lie of the ball, and it's tough for you when you look at the green and see it rewards the opposite ball flight.  In that case, I think the sports psychs would say to hit the shot you are most comfortable hitting, that what's up at the green doesn't matter as much as your confidence does.  Of course, Broadie's statistics cannot be broken down that way.

Your first impression was more what I was saying. My eye says the shot calls for a fade, but the gurus tell you just play your natural shot shape and let the chips fall where they may because the dispersion pattern for your standard shot shape is tighter than if you try to do something different. In theory, I buy all of that. But, I haven't tried this long enough to know if it really works for me. Especially, if brain is saying something is wrong, which, as you say, will lead to a bigger shot pattern.

[Michael Felton]

I would think that if your goal is to make scores among the pros higher,

That isn't necessarily my goal.


The primary goal would be to make them think about the risks and rewards a lot more than they do now by mixing things up on them.  My feeling is that the new "book" has given them more confidence about their default choices and they do not go against the book very often -- like managers who bring in their closer, they will take their lumps if the obvious choice doesn't work out, vs. sticking their necks out because the situation is different than normal.


So, most of all, I'd like to find ways to reward players for making unconventional choices [and pulling them off].  That would cause them all to have to think about it more, and as Mr. Dye once explained it to me, that's when you get them outside their comfort zones ... just by making them think.




For example, one thing I've learned from the book is that there seems to be no thought to hitting a fade or draw off the tee ... Broadie is just looking at a certain width of landing zone, not the trajectory that gets you there.  Our old friend Paul Cowley and I used to talk about making the fairways CURVE gently to encourage a draw or a fade, so your ball would be less likely to run through the other side into the rough, and back in the day, his boss might well have picked up on that, at least on the holes where it fit his fade.  Today, it seems like players just aren't looking at the fairway lines anymore ... the target area they're visualizing is a much wider area that they are sure they can hit, and the little stuff doesn't matter much.


But that's an oversimplification:  I've gotta look much more carefully at the numbers to see what happens when there's no water or o.b. in play.  At that point, the default is surely just to aim at the middle of the fairway, but it would be interesting to sort out what sort of trouble around the green would be enough to override the default setting for the tee shot.

Well one thing that would potentially force them to hit shots with a particular shape is with trees near the tee that force the ball to travel through one window close to the tee, but have that window not match up with where they want their shot pattern at the landing point. So I guess because it's the one in my head right now, imagine 18 at TPC Sawgrass, but with a big tree that forces the ball to start towards the middle of the fairway. They can either hit a fade that is landing across the landing area, making it smaller, or they can hit it straight at the middle, taking on the shot. I'd say that was probably a little bit harsh given that the penalty left is so severe, but you could do something like that on a hole that has bunkers left rather than a water hazard.

Or you put the tree on the left and make them start it at the right side of the safe area and try to draw it if they want to put it in the fairway. I wouldn't at all suggest doing that a lot, but one thing that really takes me out of my comfort zone is when the starting window doesn't line up with where I want to end up.

Having said all this, I'm struggling to think of many good holes where that happens. It feels very contrived.

What about having landforms in the fairway such that if you take on the aggressive line, hitting it close to the trouble, then you get another 50 yards of roll? That might make the math a little more difficult. Or something like 16 at NGLA where if you play left off the tee you can't see where you're going, but if you play right then you can. Have that be what pushes them towards the trouble. There has to be value in being able to see the flag. Especially if there are no landmarks behind the hole to line up on.

[David Grady]

Here's a video Scott did last night in response to the pushback from Rob Collins on the right strategy to play the fifth hole at Sweetens Cove.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKm0JrBR1GY

My takeaway is that angle hunting, as Scott calls it, is a sub-optimal strategy because the extra birdies come at the expense of extra bogeys and worse. While he preaches fat-side targets, I'm guessing he'd be comfortable with some short side misses based on green pitch and lack of bunkers, for instance.

I have no doubt that his strategies are optimized for "normal" PGA Tour conditions and that extra firm/fast conditions might imply a different dispersion pattern and therefore a different target.

[Steve Kline]

What about using hazards, slopes, and angled fairways to force distance control for the bombers?


It's one thing to know that my dispersion pattern left/right is +/- 65 yards. But, what if you had to worry about not only carrying your driver 290 or 300 but stopping it before 320 or 325. Having that kind of control with a driver would be really difficult.


For example, what if the water hazard on 18 at the Tour Championship were another 15 yards closer to the tee. The drivers that Rose and Tiger hit would have gone in the water because of the firm conditions. So, they would have had to hit 3 wood of the tee, perhaps leaving another wood to hit the green in two.


Obviously on a wet course this makes no difference. And, maybe it just doesn't really work as a design strategy.

[Tom_Doak]

One starts to see how thinking about the Tour pros can quickly lead to building obstacle courses for the average player ...


Michael F:  I am very opposed to using a tree off the tee to block players from aiming appropriately.  I'm fine with doing it on one side of the fairway near the green, because you didn't have to hit behind the tree ... but I'm not fine with putting you behind the tree to start.

[Matthew Petersen]

I read his book a few years back.


The first take away, as for so many, was really to reinforce the idea that the weakness in my game isn't really putting, as I'd always believed, but iron play (relatively). Even the greatest putters are just not making everything. When you read the stats and see that even the best in the world have to be inside 8 feet before they make 50% of their putts, it makes you feel a lot better about your own foibles on the green. But what makes those guys better is they just hit it close so often that they get way more chances than lesser players (and yes, they are fractionally better at putting as well).


As to the course thing, I was also very interested in his recommendations about aiming away from hazards. There's definitely a logic to it in tournament play. I mean, if I'm on the tee at the Road Hole, knowing I might only get to play the hole a handful of times in my life, the risk/reward for me says it is worth taking a bold line that challenges the OB down the right because that's the best way to make par. And I want to be able to say, "I made 4 on the Road Hole." And if I knock it OB and make 8 that's not a bad story, either! It's not a great story to say. "Oh, the Road Hole? I played conservatively out to the left, then short of the green, shipped on and two-putted." But if I'm playing in a tournament then that's absolutely the way to play the hole. There;'s the chance to make a 4, but mostly likely you'll make 5 and 7 is out of the equation. That's the goal in tournament golf.


But that's still a unique circumstance, a hole where playing well away from the severe hazard means likely bogey. Broadie shows that by and large on Tour (and for other players) playing away from the severe hazard generally doesn't carry that cost. Most pros can aim well away from OB or water and still expect to have a chance for birdie or par.


That would certainly make George Thomas ill to read, I would think. I suppose it's an accurate reflection of a lot of US golf courses, both based on architecture (not very strategic) and maintenance (pretty soft).

[Mike_Clayton]

Fawcett also argues centre-line bunkers and split fairways are 'intellectually lazy' architecture.
So The Old Course is an 'intellectually lazy course' and almost all of the great architects - past and present - were 'intellectually lazy'?


I posed that question to him but - probably unsurprisingly - didn't get an answer.
Also - watching the short par 4 13th at The Lakes yesterday in the Australian Open. It's a 70 yard wide fairway but a brutal green to pitch to. It's the close to the same length as 5 at Sweetens Cove by the looks (300 yards)
Cameron Smith both days positioned his tee perfectly - pretty close to the middle but just on the correct side of it (an accident Scott F would argue) for one pin back left and then back right on Friday.
He hit both wedges close enough to make 2 birdies. Brandt Snedeker (playing with him) went left edge (the wrong one) and missed the green on first day. On Friday he went to the right edge and again missed the green from 70 yards. Both times he had terrible angles and at the same time Smith had perfect ones.


Fawcett argues angles don't matter. This was one example where they did.

[Matthew Rose]

I mean, if I'm on the tee at the Road Hole, knowing I might only get to play the hole a handful of times in my life, the risk/reward for me says it is worth taking a bold line that challenges the OB down the right because that's the best way to make par. And I want to be able to say, "I made 4 on the Road Hole." And if I knock it OB and make 8 that's not a bad story, either! It's not a great story to say. "Oh, the Road Hole? I played conservatively out to the left, then short of the green, shipped on and two-putted." But if I'm playing in a tournament then that's absolutely the way to play the hole. There;'s the chance to make a 4, but mostly likely you'll make 5 and 7 is out of the equation. That's the goal in tournament golf.

I'll admit I've done this at a tour venue. I went for a par-five in two and tried to drive a green that in both cases I probably had no business doing, only because I knew it was probably the only time I'd ever get the chance. I ended up rinsing my shot on the par-five and made a bogey; if I'd laid up and simply made par, I would have broken 80.

[Matthew Petersen]

I mean, if I'm on the tee at the Road Hole, knowing I might only get to play the hole a handful of times in my life, the risk/reward for me says it is worth taking a bold line that challenges the OB down the right because that's the best way to make par. And I want to be able to say, "I made 4 on the Road Hole." And if I knock it OB and make 8 that's not a bad story, either! It's not a great story to say. "Oh, the Road Hole? I played conservatively out to the left, then short of the green, shipped on and two-putted." But if I'm playing in a tournament then that's absolutely the way to play the hole. There;'s the chance to make a 4, but mostly likely you'll make 5 and 7 is out of the equation. That's the goal in tournament golf.

I'll admit I've done this at a tour venue. I went for a par-five in two and tried to drive a green that in both cases I probably had no business doing, only because I knew it was probably the only time I'd ever get the chance. I ended up rinsing my shot on the par-five and made a bogey; if I'd laid up and simply made par, I would have broken 80.

I play a significant amount of my golf this way. The incentive is there for me to do so.


I'd rather make a birdie or an eagle or just a memory than lay up and make another par. But it all depends on what your goal is on a given day, which is sort of the point of Broadie's book. If the goal is to shoot the lowest number (whether you're on tour and that's 62, or you're not and that's breaking 80 or 90), then conservative safe play is best.


If it's just a casual round, then it's really up to your personality. Some people really hate making big numbers or losing balls. Fair enough. Me, the risk of an X is fine, for that small percentage of a time that something really fun happens.

[James Brown]

I read his book a few years back.


The first take away, as for so many, was really to reinforce the idea that the weakness in my game isn't really putting, as I'd always believed, but iron play (relatively). Even the greatest putters are just not making everything. When you read the stats and see that even the best in the world have to be inside 8 feet before they make 50% of their putts, it makes you feel a lot better about your own foibles on the green. But what makes those guys better is they just hit it close so often that they get way more chances than lesser players (and yes, they are fractionally better at putting as well).


As to the course thing, I was also very interested in his recommendations about aiming away from hazards. There's definitely a logic to it in tournament play. I mean, if I'm on the tee at the Road Hole, knowing I might only get to play the hole a handful of times in my life, the risk/reward for me says it is worth taking a bold line that challenges the OB down the right because that's the best way to make par. And I want to be able to say, "I made 4 on the Road Hole." And if I knock it OB and make 8 that's not a bad story, either! It's not a great story to say. "Oh, the Road Hole? I played conservatively out to the left, then short of the green, shipped on and two-putted." But if I'm playing in a tournament then that's absolutely the way to play the hole. There;'s the chance to make a 4, but mostly likely you'll make 5 and 7 is out of the equation. That's the goal in tournament golf.


But that's still a unique circumstance, a hole where playing well away from the severe hazard means likely bogey. Broadie shows that by and large on Tour (and for other players) playing away from the severe hazard generally doesn't carry that cost. Most pros can aim well away from OB or water and still expect to have a chance for birdie or par.


That would certainly make George Thomas ill to read, I would think. I suppose it's an accurate reflection of a lot of US golf courses, both based on architecture (not very strategic) and maintenance (pretty soft).

It’s all about where you putt from. 

[James Brown]

I’ve gone 180 degrees philosophically on scoring strategy in the last 15 years.  Time was when I believe in the Rotella philosophy 100% that scoring is all about short game and positive attitude.  But the data and modern golf teachings now tel, you that it is all about staying out of trouble off the tee and the quality of your iron play and short putting that decide things.


 Hitting 14 greens is the key to scoring!

[Mike_Clayton]

James,


And it always has been That's what Jack did for 30 years.

[Tom_Doak]

James,


And it always has been That's what Jack did for 30 years.

Yes, but it's not just hitting 14 greens.  Hitting a few iron shots close enough to make birdies is what really matters, which Broadie points out.  Being able to reach par-5 holes in two is also very helpful.

[Mike_Clayton]

Tom,


If you're good enough to hit 14 greens a round for 30 years by definition you are good enough to hit irons close and par 5s in two:)

[Michael Felton]

I think what it comes down to is not so much making lots of birdies as not making many bogeys, birdieing the par fives and hitting the odd shot close here and there and making one 15-20 footer per round. That's how you average 68, which has you number one on tour most years.

[Michael Felton]

One starts to see how thinking about the Tour pros can quickly lead to building obstacle courses for the average player ...


Michael F:  I am very opposed to using a tree off the tee to block players from aiming appropriately.  I'm fine with doing it on one side of the fairway near the green, because you didn't have to hit behind the tree ... but I'm not fine with putting you behind the tree to start.

I'm with you on that. I hate that feeling. I don't imagine many people on here talking about it, but the third hole on the blue course at Bethpage is like that. I can't stand it. It's a par three where you have to hit a hook or miss the green right. Stupid hole. Followed up by a par five where, if they use the right hand tee, you can either hit 7 iron from the tee or a 70 yard slice. Also a stupid hole.

[James Brown]

James,


And it always has been That's what Jack did for 30 years.

Yes, but it's not just hitting 14 greens.  Hitting a few iron shots close enough to make birdies is what really matters, which Broadie points out.  Being able to reach par-5 holes in two is also very helpful.

Yes.  I think the number that matters most is proximity to the hole.  That is how Dustin Johnson does it.  And Tiger.  And  most of the dominant state amateur players I have seen. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Ooh I have a good amount to say here, but I'll try to keep it short. Though, short for me is probably not short for others… sorry!

Before I start discussing what I've taken from the book, has it been discussed here before, and I just missed it?  How many of our posters have actually read the book?

I read it, and wrote my own book that came out about 40 days later covering this stuff. Lowest Score Wins. We focused more on the amateur game, which often parallels what we see in the pro game.

The most interesting part or Brodie's work to me is identifying why and where pros are so much better than amateurs.  If an amateur challenged a tour player to a putting contest, they could very easily win 1 of 2 out of 10 games with a bit of luck.

It's higher than that. A 90s shooter will beat a PGA Tour player 10% of the time over 18 holes, and a scratch golfer 30% of the time.

Broadie's sample sizes are neither small, nor confined to Tour pros or Shotlink; his data collection actually started BEFORE Shotlink was available.  He covers his methodology and samples early on in the book, and I think the reader comes away satisfied that his data is valid.  And if memory serves, he even comments that he found it surprising that the conclusions about pros holds up across the entire spectrum.

True. It aligned with what Dave Wedzik and I found in our studies, too, as did Pete Sanders' (ShotByShot) data.

So I will start with one of his conclusions that I found most jarring, which is that putting from above the hole is no different statistically from putting from below the hole.  His stats "prove" that you have a better make percentage from six feet above the hole than from eight feet below the hole, so, there would almost never be a good reason to aim an approach shot to stay below the hole, instead of aiming right at it.

Do you think that holds up at Augusta National?

You said it all in your next paragraph.  Augusta is an exception.

The diagrams of strategy on a par-4 with water or o.b. in play did stand out to me.  His recommendation is for players to aim 32.5 yards wide of a hazard whether it's in the fairway or not, because the penalty shot costs them so much more than the fractional penalty for being in the rough.  In theory, those numbers would change with the length of the hole -- i.e. it might be worth the risk if you could drive the green and make eagle sometimes -- but he does not present that scenario as far as I've seen.

Tom if you'd like, as I own copies of several of your books, I'd be happy to send you a hardcover copy of mine, as I think the "shades of grey" that Dave and I use in our "Decision Maps" in LSW are generally a better way to view these types of strategy decisions than just saying "32.5 yards wide…".

A) How does Brodie’s work compare to the data Dave Pelz was collecting years ago?

Dave Pelz is biased like crazy in this, because he only teaches the short game. He'll tell you to this day that you should spend 60% of your time practicing your short game and putting because 60% of your shots come from within 100 yards. But PGA Tour pros have nine tap-ins per round, or about 12.5% of their shots, and yet they shouldn't spend 1.25% of their time practicing tap-ins let alone 12.5%. It's a bad use of statistics and Pelz is guilty of this stuff all the time.

However, I have found the work of Scott Fawcett more compelling because he makes use of the data but provided better practical application of the data, at least in terms of the way I think. I'm pretty sure Bryson DeChambeau is a big proponent of Fawcett's decade system. And, Fawcett works with many high level college programs. So, his strategy ideas are going to become more common on Tour.

The downfall of Fawcett's stuff (and hey, read all the bias you want here as Dave and I also work with collegiate programs, etc.) is that he prescribes a single set of numbers for everyone, with virtually no variation depending on your individual abilities. Water hazard x yards from the flag = aim x yards further this direction, no matter whether you're a great wedge player, or a poor wedge player, or a 5 handicapper, or a Tour pro…

So the thing with that is most players have a baseline range of scores that they shoot. For most tour pros it's probably in the 65-72 range. For the most part, where they fall in that range is dependent on how many putts they happen to hole.

The number of putts they happen to hole often depends on how good their ball-striking is that day, as the single biggest determinant of whether you're going to make the putt is how close it is to the hole.

The tournaments where it's 30% are the ones where they have high strokes gained putting and not surprisingly the ones where they are at the top of the leaderboard. The weeks where it's 10% are the weeks they miss the cut.

If I'm reading what you're saying correctly, no… Ballstriking matters far more. The weeks where they miss too many greens and have too many par putts - regardless of whether they make 10-30% - are the weeks they miss the cut. Putting accounts for only about 35% of the strokes gained by the winner, and PGA Tour players only make, on average, 1.5 putts over 21 feet per 72 holes. The great putters bump that to 1.7.

The winner each week, I generalize as "the best putter out of the best ballstriker." Where by "best putter" I don't mean in general, I mean the one who putts well and has a little luck that week.

Conversely, strokes gained approach across a season ranges from about -2.5 to +2.5. A far higher range, which is why that has more impact than putting. But a given player who has a good approach game probably ranges from +1 to +2, while a bad player might range from -1 to -2. I'm making these numbers up, but the point is that week to week people's strokes gained approach doesn't change very much, while their putting number fluctuates a lot more.

Funny that you say that, as today after talking with someone else I asked Mark that question, basically: https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkBroadie/status/1063583993285750785

SG std dev by round in 2018: OTT  1.1, APP  1.6, ARG  1.1, Putt 1.7.  This is consistent with winners (typically) raising their game in the week they win with better putting and better approach shots.

Clearly there is a bigger difference in the long game. So that might imply you should work on your long game. What I don't think Broadie's stuff shows you is how much work might be involved in improving those. What I mean there is it might be that if you spent 15 minutes a day in your basement working on your putting from 6-8 feet for a week before a tournament, you could make the putting number -2 instead of -4, so you could pick up 2 shots right there. To gain two shots with your long game might need months of work to be done.

That's one of the things that I think Dave and I cover well.

There's data to show what the real number is for my hypothetical 20 yards above. Both Broadie and Fawcett could tell you what it takes the average tour pro to hole out from certain distances in the rough and fairway.

Here you go: http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-5-2.png
20 yards rough: 2.59 strokes. 150 yards fairway: about 2.95.

Actually, I think Fawcett's point is that the dispersion patterns aren't dramatically different from player to player. Basically, every single golfer, virtually regardless of skill level has a dispersion pattern that is +/- 10% of the distance the shot travels. It has more to do with physics than skill level. (I think Broadie makes this point too).

 

The average amateur's dispersion is not 10%. And Tour players are below 10%.

https://cl.ly/ce1546194bad/Screen%20Shot%202018-11-17%20at%2012.32.31%20AM.png
(The "Average Golfer" in this graphic isn't calculated or empirical - it's an example from a presentation, and you're missing the explanatory talking that goes along with it).

Tom, short siding yourself is over-rated as a negative. If you're short-sided, you're closer to the hole. Players with "a lot of green to work with" are obviously FAR from the hole, relatively speaking. Short-siding yourself is only generally bad if the green slopes away and you have to fly the ball over a bunker or an upslope or something, basically guaranteeing you can't get the ball close easily.

But yeah, putting from even 50 feet is often better than a short shot from the rough. But remember even 20 yards is 60 feet, so that's not really "short siding" yourself, because that's not inside a 50-foot putt.

As to the course thing, I was also very interested in his recommendations about aiming away from hazards. There's definitely a logic to it in tournament play. I mean, if I'm on the tee at the Road Hole, knowing I might only get to play the hole a handful of times in my life, the risk/reward for me says it is worth taking a bold line that challenges the OB down the right because that's the best way to make par. And I want to be able to say, "I made 4 on the Road Hole." And if I knock it OB and make 8 that's not a bad story, either! It's not a great story to say. "Oh, the Road Hole? I played conservatively out to the left, then short of the green, shipped on and two-putted." But if I'm playing in a tournament then that's absolutely the way to play the hole. There;'s the chance to make a 4, but mostly likely you'll make 5 and 7 is out of the equation. That's the goal in tournament golf.

Yeah, we liken the optimal course strategy to playing a game with one die given 10:1 odds. You'd keep playing that game as long as the idiot let you, because even if you guess wrong on the first ten rolls, it's going to work out in your favor eventually. But if you're playing a tough hole where optimal strategy is hitting a hybrid off the tee, but you NEED a birdie… then you might just have to hit driver. The lowest AVERAGE score is not necessarily going to give you the highest odds of making a birdie. Different situations warrant different strategies.

The last time I played the Road Hole by hitting driver over the O in Hotel (bit of right-to-left wind). The pin was front right, near the Road Hole Bunker, and my 6-iron from 180 flew about 90 yards, rolled the other 90, and came to a stop 15 feet from the hole, and I made the putt.  In LSW we talk about a "penalty buffer" that surrounds hazards and things, and the Road Hole Bunker is what we'd call a fairly dark shade of grey. So generally, the strategy might be to lay up just short of the green, but like you said, you don't get to play the Road Hole every other day of the week, so…

[Tom_Doak]

Erik:


I'd love to see your book.


You've already addressed several of the limitations I could see in the book at hand.  Not that the things I want to sort out from it were the point of Broadie's book at all ... without seeing his work I could not have even asked some of my questions.

[Thomas Dai]

Forgive me if I’m incorrect but I’m under the impression that what’s under discussion is how Tour players operate, indeed in his opening post Tom mentions “......how tour players operate now.”
But comments seen to have moved away from this.
Tour pros are usually playing 2-4 competitive rounds per week for money. Their not playing the Road Hole at TOC on a once in a lifetime basis, if they’re fortunate/good enough to be playing that hole during The Open then a bunch of cash, fame and maybe a claret jug are on the line. And surely how you play 36-72 holes over a 2-4 round period with fame and fortune on the line is going to be rather different than playing one famous hole on the same course on a once in a lifetime basis?
Just saying.
Atb

[Matt Bosela]

Erik:


I'd love to see your book.


You've already addressed several of the limitations I could see in the book at hand.  Not that the things I want to sort out from it were the point of Broadie's book at all ... without seeing his work I could not have even asked some of my questions.

Tom,

I'll just say this: I own Brodie's book AND Erik & Dave's book and for amateurs, "Lowest Score Wins" is much more relevant and easier to navigate.


I re-read it in March every year as a refresher before the season starts and usually go back to it once or twice during the season as well. 


If you like Broadie's book, you'll really enjoy "Lowest Score Wins" as well.

[David_Tepper]

Does either book address the aging, senior, double-digit handicap golfer who needs 2 career shots (and a firm fairway!) to reach a 400-yard par-4?    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()