[Pete Lavallee]

I still don't buy it.

I would humbly suggest that working on your short game and putting would get you to scratch quicker than hitting the gym.

Duncan,

Who said I have a bad short game!

I have a legitimate scratch gollfer in my Sunday group, 4 time Club Champion, played in the Cal. Am at Pebble Beach, ect. I see every week how he does it and hitting short irons into greens is a HUGE part of the equation. I would say our short games are about equall. He is not a long hitter , but is consistantly 30 yards by me; that makes all the difference in the world. NOBODY gets up and down every time; the best you could possibly hope for is a 70% average (I  am at around a 50% mark). You've got to hit greens in regulation to be  scratch and I have yet to meet someone who hits hybrid or fairway wood into 1/3 of the greens and maintain a zero handicap. Sure they may be a 3 or a 5, but that my friend is as far away from scratch as a 36 is to a 20.

[Scott Warren]

Brett,

You fund me for the year and I'll do it!

[Marty Bonnar]

Jonathan,
you maybe confusing your nadirs with your, ehm, zeniths, perchance?
Yours in edumacashun,
FBD.

[jeffwarne]

One of Mucci's posts got me thinking about my handicap.  I'm a 12 and have been roughly in that handicap range for 4-5 years.  Over 40+ years playing I was once briefly a 6 - that's my nadir.

A question I enjoy asking my golf teachers over the years is this.  "If I gave you ten million dollars, demanded you leave your wife and family to spend a year full time with me (8 hours a day, 7 days a week); made at your desposal Pelz, sport's psychologists and anybody else you want; can you make me a scratch golfer?"

Somewhat surprisingly to a man they say yes.  The question is not really applied to me but a general one.  For a reasonably coordinated and experienced golfer can you be intensely trained to get to scratch or do you reach a limit (physically and/or mentally) you can't go beyond - Your Peter Principle Handicap.

What do you think?

Jonathan

If you've been playing 40 years and are a 12, there's no chance you're going to scratch in a year.
The ONLY person who would have a shot at this would be a great athelete who had only been playing a short time-and was already a 12
A year is hardly a sacrifice-nearly all players who who acheived a zero handicap lived, drank, and ate the sport for quite a bit longer than that. Many would say they could take you there, many would say they could acheive it,but it ain't gonna happen.

I'm not saying the Peter principle is 100%, I'm saying 40 years of doing it one way isn't going to be possible to change in just one year.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Sorry Martin - it is nadir.  The lowest point of my handicap.  From a King's English standpoint nadir is correct although zenith is an amusing oxymoronic play on words.  "I've reached my handicap zenith!!!!! - I am the worst I've ever been"! 

[Duncan Cheslett]

I still don't buy it.

I would humbly suggest that working on your short game and putting would get you to scratch quicker than hitting the gym.

Duncan,

Who said I have a bad short game!

I have a legitimate scratch gollfer in my Sunday group, 4 time Club Champion, played in the Cal. Am at Pebble Beach, ect. I see every week how he does it and hitting short irons into greens is a HUGE part of the equation. I would say our short games are about equall. He is not a long hitter , but is consistantly 30 yards by me; that makes all the difference in the world. NOBODY gets up and down every time; the best you could possibly hope for is a 70% average (I  am at around a 50% mark). You've got to hit greens in regulation to be  scratch and I have yet to meet someone who hits hybrid or fairway wood into 1/3 of the greens and maintain a zero handicap. Sure they may be a 3 or a 5, but that my friend is as far away from scratch as a 36 is to a 20.

I didn't mean to suggest you had a bad short game, Pete! I just don't agree that really big drives are essential to becoming a scratch golfer.

I played 9 holes with a scratch player a few months ago and what was noticeable about his play was that although his drives were not massive in length, they were deadly accurate. He never missed a fairway and more importantly, he never missed a green with his approach. His 5 - 7 irons were awesome, hitting his chosen section of the green from 150-190 yards every time. Chatting to him was very illuminating for a relative beginner such as myself. His game was all about course management and control - he never took an unnecessary risk and deliberately placed his drives (3-woods actually) in the optimum spot for his favourite medium iron approach shot. To be honest it was a bit like playing with a robot and such an obsessively controlled outlook wouldn't suit me - but then I'm not likely ever to become a scratch golfer!

The thing is, I'm sure that with his superb technique this guy was more than capable of driving the ball 270yards+. He CHOSE not to however, preferring to think his way around the course in level par.

Equally, I am surprised that anyone with the technique necessary to play off single figures does not find themselves hitting their driver a long way with all the advantages of modern equipment. The main thing I've learned is that brute strength is not a particularly important component in the golf swing - timing, leverage, body momentum, and club-head speed are what projects the golf ball. I don't see how 'hitting the gym' might help.

[Bryan Izatt]

Johnathan,

I think that Marty is right, as usual.  In the Queen's English, nadir means the lowest point in a negative sense.  Following is the Oxford definition:

"1 the lowest or most unsuccessful point in a situation:asking that question was the nadir of my career"

Perhaps what you mean to say is that your current handicap is the nadir of your golf career.

Re your question, I think that for every person there is an innate limit to their ability to improve their golf game.  There are many who try for many years with coaching, psych assistance, and practice to become tour players.  Most don't make it, no matter how long and hard they try.  Becoming scratch is no doubt an easier target, but there are still a small percentage that can achieve that goal.  There are many professional athletes, from other sports, who have the physical skills and the mental makeup to be scratch players, but there are few, if any, who can get there, despite trying.

   

[Colin Macqueen]

Jonathon, Bryan,

That's Scottish "edumacashun" for you.

Marty,  See ...... I understand Macqueen's English!

Cheers Colin

[Sean_A]

This is an interesting topic because nearly all the bangers on this board claim nearly all of the toughest courses are playable for all if all choose the right tees.  This would seem to suggest that many scratchers playing 6500 yarders are not a scratchers playing 7000 yarders and that true scratch is playing to par - rather than the course SSS.  In other words, scratch as a pro sees it in absolute terms.  If this is the case then there are one hell of a lot less scratch golfers out there than the numbers indicate, but of course, not many scratch players in the States expect to average par and if they do they will lose a lot of money on bets.  In any case, something is either wrong with that logic or I am wrong.  I have always believed that for the up and coming golfer (not the guy who is past his prime) it is harder to be a scratch player on a relatively short course with a low SSS - say a few shots less than par.  There are just less mistakes allowable then for a longer course with its SSS a few shots over par.  To me, this question of length is really only an issue if a guy just can't get it anywhere near out there AND he has to regularly compete on much longer courses than his own.  You just don't see this sort of situation often because these guys nearly always tend to be older and its not just length which is an issue.   

Ciao

[Doug Siebert]

With a suitable reward I'm sure I could do it.  I've been between 4 and 8 for 25 years, but I've never had a lesson, visit the range about once every 2 or 3 years, and tend to prefer having fun over shooting a low score.  But I hit it a long way, and at least have a decent short game occasionally enough to make myself believe it could be consistently good enough to be scratch if I worked at it.  I figure the best bang for my buck getting to scratch would be to just accept that I'm going to hit the ball into stupid places sometimes and work at turning bogeys into pars and doubles into bogeys.  Since I get to throw out the high half of my scores, the days when I'm spraying my driver badly won't count against me so it probably wouldn't be worth the effort of trying to rebuild my swing to make my full swing less dependent on perfect timing.

Are you giving me the $10 million up front?  Or is it only if I succeed in attaining scratch?  I might want a little something up front, maybe a 10% nonrefundable advance on the condition that I keep working at it the whole 365 days.  Not saying the $10 million isn't motivation, but I have a feeling if it got to be early summer and I wasn't seeing the improvement I expected I might start hating it so much I'd bag the whole thing.  Having at least a little bit guaranteed would keep me showing up on the practice green every day.

[Pete Lavallee]

I just don't agree that really big drives are essential to becoming a scratch golfer.

Duncan,

I never said you needed "really big drives" to become a scratch. I asked a simple question of just what is the shortest distance you could hit it and still be a scratch. The reason for that is I have played with JC and suspect he hits it around 230 yards off the tee. Now even if he brought machine like precision to his already reliable swing, I don't think he could maintain a zero handicap with the length he has now. Don't forget the USGA defined a scratch player, during the persimon era, as someone who could drive it 250 yards off the tee. This was a reflection of data collected at various US Amatuer Championships. I still firmly believe that your potential as a golfers is goverened by your distance, if this were not true the profressional golf tours would be dominated by short but straight hitters; last time I checked that was not the case.

[jeffwarne]

I just don't agree that really big drives are essential to becoming a scratch golfer.

Duncan,

I never said you needed "really big drives" to become a scratch. I asked a simple question of just what is the shortest distance you could hit it and still be a scratch. The reason for that is I have played with JC and suspect he hits it around 230 yards off the tee. Now even if he brought machine like precision to his already reliable swing, I don't think he could maintain a zero handicap with the length he has now. Don't forget the USGA defined a scratch player, during the persimon era, as someone who could drive it 250 yards off the tee. This was a reflection of data collected at various US Amatuer Championships. I still firmly believe that your potential as a golfers is goverened by your distance, if this were not true the profressional golf tours would be dominated by short but straight hitters; last time I checked that was not the case.

There are no absolutes on distance to be a scratch
First of all a scratch doesn't average par.
It's his best 10 out of twenty compared to the course rating and slope.
If your best 10 out of 20 averaged 76 at my course you're a scaratch

The first time I played with Charles Howell he didn't hit a drive over 220 and he shot 67 (he was 14)

[Pete Lavallee]

Jeff,

You get the opportunity to see alot of players in your line of work. What is the shortest driving person you have seen that maintained a zero handicap?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,

You get the opportunity to see alot of players in your line of work. What is the shortest driving person you have seen that maintained a zero handicap?

Pete,
Unfortunately I don't see as many scratch players as i used to given my current club(I still can't get emoticons to work)
Additionally modern equipment has expanded how far people hit it.
I've seen quite a few in the 220 range though, usually formerly + handicaps or pros who were a bit older (but had the short game and mind of a n elite player)
There are a few pros who are quite competitive in the MET section who don't hit more than 230 (we play primarily older classic courses so we don't see too many 7500 yard beats)  I know in the arly 90's I primarily teed off with a spoon that didn't go more than 230 and I was competitive.
You really only need to hit 8-10 greens in a round to shoot par-I played witha guy in an amateur event who hit his driver no more than 240(and crooked) who hit one green and shot two under! (he also won the Eastern Amateur-was about 20 under for 3 rounds)

[George Pazin]

I still firmly believe that your potential as a golfers is goverened by your distance, if this were not true the profressional golf tours would be dominated by short but straight hitters; last time I checked that was not the case.

The reason length is such a factor on the pro tours is they all have great short games, at least relative to all other golfers. So, all other things being somewhat equal, length will certainly help a great deal.

I'd be surprised if any man could spend a year working 8 hours a day and not hit the driver at least 240-250. I doubt 230 is anywhere near Jonathan's potential. I've only enjoyed one round with JC, but he didn't strike me as short off the tee. Of course, I was usually searching for my drive off the fairway, so maybe I missed out.

[Matthew Petersen]

There are plenty of ways to be a scratch golfer. You certainly need to work on the weakest part of your game, but also understand that you will always have strengths and weaknesses and you need to maximize your strengths.

I mentioned before that I spent one summer home from college working at a course and playing every day. I wasn't keeping a handicap then but I would wager I was as close to being a scratch player then as I ever will be (I'm currently about a 3). I'm a good driver, poor iron player, good around the green, but a bad putter. So, that summer it certainly helped that I played all the time and got better at putting. But the reality is putting is never going to be my strength, it will probably always be the weakest part of my game. What factored the most into my being really good that summer was that my driving went from good to really really good and my iron (particularly short iron) play improved significantly. I got so consistent driving the ball that I rarely hit it in trouble--that eliminated most of the big numbers that can ruin a round. I also got more consistent with short iron shots so that when I had one I could always at least hit it solid--I wasn't stuffing it in close every time, but I eliminated the terrible miss that wasted a good drive. If you can get it on the green in regulation, even a decidedly average putter like myself is going to make a few birdies and get most down in two for pars.

[jeffwarne]

I still firmly believe that your potential as a golfers is goverened by your distance, if this were not true the profressional golf tours would be dominated by short but straight hitters; last time I checked that was not the case.

The reason length is such a factor on the pro tours is they all have great short games, at least relative to all other golfers. So, all other things being somewhat equal, length will certainly help a great deal.

I'd be surprised if any man could spend a year working 8 hours a day and not hit the driver at least 240-250. I doubt 230 is anywhere near Jonathan's potential. I've only enjoyed one round with JC, but he didn't strike me as short off the tee. Of course, I was usually searching for my drive off the fairway, so maybe I missed out.

George,
It just doesn't work that way.
The original premise was for a lifelong golfer to go from 8-12  to scratch.
If you're currently swinging the club at 80 mph, all the work in the world isn't going to produce more speed.
Unless you're young and growing.
I've seen many many men work for 8 hours a day on their golf for years-the only reason they ever get longer is squarer, more solid contact, but their clubhead speed rarely goes up.
The only ones that got better improver their short game and consistency(which led to higher average length)

[George Pazin]

I'm sure it doesn't work that way for everyone, probably not even for most, but I'd be a little surprised if Jonathan was maxed out at 230.

Perhaps the money involved would prompt a call to Barry Bonds trainer...

I agree with your short game comments and other points.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()