[Patrick_Mucci]

Daniel Wexler,

I don't know what to draw from your observations either.
I think more data is needed.

It would interest me to know the scores these players shot on the 9th hole while you observed them.

If the scoring pattern mirrored previous scoring patterns on the hole, what could we conclude ?

1.   That these guys are so good, and the aerial assault so
      perfected that angles of attack have been muted as
      architectural features on this hole ?

2.   That they're creatures of habit ?

3.   That they didn't notice ?

4.   That the lie on their prefered side of the fairway was
      better ?

5.   That their games are elevated so beyond ours, that our
      thinking is antiquated ?

I really don't know, but, it would make for an interesting study.

If the PGA Tour Pros, the BEST golfers in the world, do something, you can usually bet that that's the way to do it.

But, we all make mistakes.

[Glenn Spencer]

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.

Sold

[Glenn Spencer]

Daniel Wexler,

I don't know what to draw from your observations either.
I think more data is needed.

It would interest me to know the scores these players shot on the 9th hole while you observed them.

If the scoring pattern mirrored previous scoring patterns on the hole, what could we conclude ?

1.   That these guys are so good, and the aerial assault so
      perfected that angles of attack have been muted as
      architectural features on this hole ?

2.   That they're creatures of habit ?

3.   That they didn't notice ?

4.   That the lie on their prefered side of the fairway was
      better ?

5.   That their games are elevated so beyond ours, that our
      thinking is antiquated ?

I really don't know, but, it would make for an interesting study.

If the PGA Tour Pros, the BEST golfers in the world, do something, you can usually bet that that's the way to do it.

But, we all make mistakes.

1. for sure 2. is quite a possibility and 5. might just be the case.

[Sean_A]

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

Huckabilly

I had a case very similar to yours with a woman on our team in a comp.  She couldn't make the carry in a lifetime of attempts.  I told here to putt the ball 30 yards forward and try from just short of the rough - she had two shots on a par 3 so we needed her, besides it was a three drives from each to count type of scramble.  She thought I was daft, but did it and made her net 2.  

I watched my father play the game this way for many a year.  He was the absolute master at hitting bridgesand finding gaps between bunkers.  The guy was constantly looking for a way to get his ball to the green and detested a hole which didn't give him a sliver of hope.  That is why I say any carry is still a carry and shouldn't be dismissed as it is by many on this site as inconsequential.  

I am not at all sure this means my father was a better thinker than Jack.  It is all relative.  I do know that playing with chaps such as my father has immeasurably increased my respect for courses which are playable and enjoyable for all.  

So to sum up, maybe I agree with, maybe I don't!

Ciao

Sean

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - that's cool - hell calling my Dad a better golf thinker than Jack has even me feeling odd.  I mainly just wanted to illustrate that there is a different kind of golf thinking short-hitting ams like this have to face, and those who do it well - like my Dad AND YOURS - are to be commended and recognized.

But now I can add another to the short list of things I would love to see in my life:  a match between our two fathers.  They would parry and tack each other to death and good lord would it be fun to watch.

 

BTW, great point re carries.  

TH

[Daniel_Wexler]

Pat:

To my recollection, Pavin made the only birdie and there were numerous fives, so the scoring average was certainly well above par - but it's a tough hole, so I'm not sure how it was relative to other days (a good question).  Of your five possibles, I can say, with confidence, that it wasn't number four (a difference in lies).  Two and three seemed to be in evidence, and number five is always a possibility.  

The interesting prospect is #1, but while I'm sure that most architectural features have been muted buy equipment/the aerial game, on this occasion at least, that cannot truly be applied as almost nobody finished anywhere near the pin.  Indeed, THAT fact made me wonder if the prevalent thinking was that the pin was simply inaccessible that day so who cares where the tee shot goes?  But then I reminded myself that finding the right side of the fairway is VASTLY easier than going down the left, so even if pin position was deemed irrelevant, going left still made no sense.

Beats the heck out of me.

DW

[Sean_A]

Sean - that's cool - hell calling my Dad a better golf thinker than Jack has even me feeling odd.  I mainly just wanted to illustrate that there is a different kind of golf thinking short-hitting ams like this have to face, and those who do it well - like my Dad AND YOURS - are to be commended and recognized.

But now I can add another to the short list of things I would love to see in my life:  a match between our two fathers.  They would parry and tack each other to death and good lord would it be fun to watch.

 

BTW, great point re carries.  

TH

Huckster

The days of my father searching for a gap are sadly over.  Blindness has taken away two of his greatest loves: golf & hunting.  Ironically my father says that what he enjoyed most about golf was taking pleasure in watching others play the game.  My old man is a proper chap you know.

PS I would not have betted against my dad!

Ciao

Sean

[JohnV]

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. I

The hole is only about 360 yards.  Brian could reach it with his eyes closed.  I asked him about it after the round and he specifically chose to layup short each time in order to never have a downhill or sidehill putt on that green.

As the pressure gets higher, the player who thinks better moves higher.  Players with great swings make bad decisions.  It is what makes Tiger and Jack great and makes Arnie and Phil look foolish at times.

There is a sum of talent, practice, mental abilities and that day/weeks swing mechanics/putting stroke that add up to victory or defeat.  But guys like Tiger can win with the "B" or even "C" game because they think their way around the course.  Some weeks John Daly's talent and mechanics/stroke overcome his brain and he can beat Fred Funk.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

i have not read all the threads on this topic, and therefore may be repeating what has already been said.

In my opinion the top players  tend to think a little better, but the big difference is that they are more able to execute their game plan/s.
We can alll see the obvious trouble spots ona hole to avoid..we can all see the penalties for short siding ourselves..we can all see the side of the fairway that has trouble lurking...we cal all see which portion of the green provides the most severity in putting lines...but they are able to hit the shots to,avoid those areas more regularly than the rest of us.

I believe my on course management is tour quality, my shotmaking...well no friggin" way!!!

[JohnV]

Geoff Ogilvy said:

Tiger is the best golfer in the world because he's got the best brain.  He hits the ball well, but there are plenty of guys who hit the ball well. But Tiger probably has the second-best head in history next to Jack (Nicklaus), and it might turn out that Tiger's is more impressive than Jack's.

[George Pazin]

Lots of interesting opinions, but in reality, how can anyone know who thinks best, unless the golfer tells you his plan in advance? Most people are judgely decision making solely on the basis of what happened - that doesn't make it in any way the right choice.

I could be the best decision maker on the face of the earth, but it's not gonna help me beat - or even stay within 15 strokes - of even Shivas or any other low handicapper - or even stay within 20 strokes of Jeff Forston, unless they give me a ton of help by playing unusually poorly. Even then, if they're playing poorly, it's probably because of difficult conditions, which would mean I'd be playing even more poorly!

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - apologies, my friend.  But your Dad does sound like a very proper chap, and I mean that as a quite high compliment.  In any case, just the thought of a match between these two is bringing a smile to my face.

 

[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. I

The hole is only about 360 yards.  Brian could reach it with his eyes closed.  I asked him about it after the round and he specifically chose to layup short each time in order to never have a downhill or sidehill putt on that green.

As the pressure gets higher, the player who thinks better moves higher.  Players with great swings make bad decisions.  It is what makes Tiger and Jack great and makes Arnie and Phil look foolish at times.

There is a sum of talent, practice, mental abilities and that day/weeks swing mechanics/putting stroke that add up to victory or defeat.  But guys like Tiger can win with the "B" or even "C" game because they think their way around the course.  Some weeks John Daly's talent and mechanics/stroke overcome his brain and he can beat Fred Funk.

I am confused, 360 and Henninger is reaching it with his eyes closed? I am sorry, but I am not about to give anyone credit for showing the 'restraint' of not trying to drive a par 4 that is 360. Tiger may think like a champion, but I think he plays his way to the titles. If he was using strategy and course management, he wouldn't be hitting his driver all over the lot, round the clock. You are correct about Daly to say the least.

[George Pazin]

Glenn, I think you are completely misreading John. I think he is saying that on his approach shot, not his tee shot, Henninger played short of the green. I doubt many golfers, amateur or pro, would intentionally play short on an approach shot of a 360 yard par 4.

I would, but not necessarily intentionally.

In all seriousness, plays like Henningers are a big part of why I'm a habitual underclubber. Unless there is trouble short of a green, you are often better off below a hole than above or even pin high.

[Glenn Spencer]

Glenn, I think you are completely misreading John. I think he is saying that on his approach shot, not his tee shot, Henninger played short of the green. I doubt many golfers, amateur or pro, would intentionally play short on an approach shot of a 360 yard par 4.

I would, but not necessarily intentionally.

In all seriousness, plays like Henningers are a big part of why I'm a habitual underclubber. Unless there is trouble short of a green, you are often better off below a hole than above or even pin high.

Thank you George, you are correct.

John,

My humblest apologies. That is quite an unusual strategy that he employed there. I can see why you asked him.

[Glenn Spencer]

George,

I would put myself in the habitual underclubber category as well, it sure seems to limit my number of birdies though and significantly. Kick-ins are a thing of the past, but so are 7,8's in the same round. I am thinking of going back, it was more fun on the roller-coaster.

[Brent Hutto]

In all seriousness, plays like Henningers are a big part of why I'm a habitual underclubber. Unless there is trouble short of a green, you are often better off below a hole than above or even pin high.

Depends on the course. I learned the game on a older (70's vintage) public course with smallish push-up greens. They tended to have a back-to-front tilt with little or no trouble short of the green. Just club for the front of the green and you'll have something like a 20-foot putt or a 40-foot simple chip.

Then I moved to a newish course with bigger, flatter greens (albeit some of them with tiers). The deal there was to quit aiming for the front of the green because that could leave a 50-foot or more putt. So I learned to take at least one more club than I would have at the old course.

My current club has a much, much finer course than either of those. Among other reasons, I like it because the question of where to miss varies from hole to hole (green complex to green complex). There are many holes where the approach you use works, just get it around the front of the green and leave yourself putting or chipping uphill. On other holes, it is actually better to be long than short. On still others, the greens are shallow and wide and there's one side or another of the green that will sort of gather in shots that are either a club too long or a club too short (although maybe that leaves you a tough putt if the hole's on the other side of the green).

From the tees I play the course rating plus slope works out about the same at my new club as at the previous one. But what I've found is that it's harder to shoot a really good score here because I can't just adopt a simplistic strategy such as always being short or always aiming for the middle of the green. I hit the ball better now than I did a year or two ago yet my best rounds end up being 85 instead of 82 because I can't get in a groove where my targets are obvious and my bad shots end up leaving easy chips. I love it!

[George Pazin]

Brent, that's why I said often and not always.

George,

I would put myself in the habitual underclubber category as well, it sure seems to limit my number of birdies though and significantly. Kick-ins are a thing of the past, but so are 7,8's in the same round. I am thinking of going back, it was more fun on the roller-coaster.

I played a round recently with a scratch friend and that is exactly what he said, when we were discussing club selection and I gave my rationale for underclubbing.

[Glenn Spencer]

George,

It is a very distinct picture in my mind, sometimes knowing how to play a hole, can be a real disadvantage. Sometimes it is better to not know any better, I think this is the pro's agenda more than some think. Where is the pin and what is the yardage to carry and what do I have behind it?

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Re underclubbing, think of it this way also:  how often do you hit an iron so perfectly that it goes its maximum distance, as opposed to how many times do you miss it it enough that it goes 10-15 yards short of such?

For me, the percentages are probaly 25% I get all of it and it goes close to what it can; 75% it falls 5-15 yards short of that.

And as you know I'm a decent player, 5 handicapper.  I'd guess the percentages would have to be even worse for you.

So what's the point of consciously underclubbing in an effort to avoid trouble long and pin-high?  Take the proper club and 3/4 of the time at least you're not gonna get there anyway....

If I'm your caddie and your Sunday best 6 iron goes 165, and we're standing at 165, I want you hitting 5.  If you hit 6 I'll reluctantly agree.  If you hit 7 in some misguided effort toward playing smart, I drop the bag and walk in.

 

[George Pazin]

George:

Re underclubbing, think of it this way also:  how often do you hit an iron so perfectly that it goes its maximum distance, as opposed to how many times do you miss it it enough that it goes 10-15 yards short of such?

Not often, just every time I hit the extra club.

If I'm your caddie and your Sunday best 6 iron goes 165, and we're standing at 165, I want you hitting 5.  If you hit 6 I'll reluctantly agree.  If you hit 7 in some misguided effort toward playing smart, I drop the bag and walk in.

 

If I hit 5 iron from 165, you better hope it's uphill, or we're going way over. Unless I chunk it 60 yards.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

George - the distances were just for reference sake given I've never played with you and have zero clue how far your average iron shots go.  Just do try to think of it in this light:  especially for non-scratch players, playing the percentages in terms of how well you hit the ball is as important as any other factor.  I know so many guys who once in their lives hit a 7 iron 175 yards, so now every time they stand at 175, 7iron it is.  They come up short 95% of the time, sometimes REALLY short.  I'm not saying this is what you do - again I don't know - but it is just something to think about.

BTW my distances are very short and I'm not ashamed to admit them:  if I'm at a flat windless 150, I hit 7iron.  I know I can hit a 7iron 160, or even farther.  But I also know my average 7iron is gonna go 150.  I hit a lot of greens.  I go over every once in awhile, come up short about as often.  I do however rarely come up so short that I don't have a chance to make the green.

I do think that absent some horrid trouble long, the best percentage is to take enough club so that you can comfortably reach the hole.  For every one time you go long you're gonna come up short 3-4 times anyway, thus effectively accomplishing your underclubbing stay short of the worst trouble strategy anyway, while still giving yourself a chance to get one close.

TH

[George Pazin]

Huck, my tactical approach is not as simplistic as habitually underclubbing, I just used that as an example re: the Henninger thing.

Also, "average" for me is meaningless. My average 7 iron is probably 140, but I hit well over half of them 165-175, it's just that every now and then I chunk one 30 yards.

Honestly, I don't even pay close attention to yardages. I glance at the 150 marker, ballpark it and go. I'm not nearly consistent enough to worry about specifics. I do end up pin high a lot of the time, so my guessing is either pretty solid, or I do a good job of compensating.

Irony of ironies, me being a math major, science geek and all, I'm a total feel player. The best shot I hit the whole day at the Hidden Creek outing last year was a soft high cut 7 iron from about 130-140. Weird.

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Gotcha.  You would be tough to caddie for.  

But you would be a great client as I'm sure we'd play very fast.

 

[JohnV]

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. I

The hole is only about 360 yards.  Brian could reach it with his eyes closed.  I asked him about it after the round and he specifically chose to layup short each time in order to never have a downhill or sidehill putt on that green.

As the pressure gets higher, the player who thinks better moves higher.  Players with great swings make bad decisions.  It is what makes Tiger and Jack great and makes Arnie and Phil look foolish at times.

There is a sum of talent, practice, mental abilities and that day/weeks swing mechanics/putting stroke that add up to victory or defeat.  But guys like Tiger can win with the "B" or even "C" game because they think their way around the course.  Some weeks John Daly's talent and mechanics/stroke overcome his brain and he can beat Fred Funk.

I am confused, 360 and Henninger is reaching it with his eyes closed? I am sorry, but I am not about to give anyone credit for showing the 'restraint' of not trying to drive a par 4 that is 360. Tiger may think like a champion, but I think he plays his way to the titles. If he was using strategy and course management, he wouldn't be hitting his driver all over the lot, round the clock. You are correct about Daly to say the least.

Reach meant in two shots!  He could get to the green any time he wanted to.  He just didn't want to.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()