Strokes Gained - No Laying Up podcast

[Deleted Member 1156]

Come on, this isn’t true. Broadstone has rough. It might be only a small amount but it does not go a fairway straight to heather!!

Of course it has rough but if you want to blast your way round it you will not be hitting greens in regulation from the heather. Shorter on the fairway is a much better option than longer in the heather.

 

[pinberry]

That's a well reasoned response for which I thank you. With regards point 4....as you say, it takes a lot more effort to improve the long game than it does to improve ones putting....on this we both agree....but the point I would make from the view of the real world amateur golfer who has a vast range of other commitments who may not have the time to spend hours practicing the long game is.....surely it is better to focus what little time you've got into areas where you can make "easy gains"....to grab those three or four shots a round that might be lost due to bad putting?

I understand what the stats say....I'm just trying to practically apply how such information can be utilized by the average amateur into making ,what for a significant percentage of them is going to be a limited opportunity, their practice as useful as possible. Its far easier to spend 15 minutes a night rolling putts on the living room carpet to the cat than it is to get down the range once a week for an hour.


BTW I really smiled at the "I think you should agree with me" phrase....a far better way of saying "you don't know what you are talking about" than telling me not to contribute if I haven't read a book!!!

Good reply If one does not have time to practice, better to roll putts in the living room than reading about statistics. Also, most amateurs don't want to improve but just enjoy the game, which is also fine. But then, time and time again, people enjoy their game when they play good golf..

 

[turkish]

One good analogy in that podcast is Broadie talking about EduardoMolinari talking about importance of long game vs short game in pro to amateurwas if you play 2 x 9 hole contest with him- one from a 200 yard approach and 1from just on the green- he will probably wipe the floor on both but with theputting one you will probably have a 25-30% chance of beating him, the longgame no chance!

Nick you should read the book and listen to the podcast itis a bit of an eye opener- you can go in with an open mind but I think youwould be turned into a different way of thinking once you read the stats and bythe sound of it you are into stats.

On the podcast he does actually state how many expectedgains an 80 round player has over a 90 round player and it really isn’t thatmuch (on average- I can’t remember the exact figure).

From my perspective Arcoss has me as a 6.7 handicap putter(my actual HC in 16.3) and Arcoss has me overall 15.9 so pretty close. Mydriving, approach and pitching/chipping are all poor though so this is where Iknow I need to concentrate. My approach is my highest perceived handicap with arelative HC of 20.8- hitting only 1/3 GIR and leaving 30 footers on those GIR so this is the area I am now working on.

 

[nickjdavis]

There have been enough folks espousing the virtues of what Broadie writes and urging me to read the book that I placed an order for a copy earlier this morning.

I did read Broadies original paper on "strokes gained" in putting when it originally came out in 2011/12 (?) and found it very interesting as a concept but at the time there was no real way of making it relevant to "handicap golfers" as the only stats available were from the Tour. I may have come across as dismissive of the strokes gained concept (or at least dismissed the findings) in previous posts but that's not the case at all....I am very open minded but I do question things rather than accept blindly what I am told...especially if they seem at odds with my own experiences.

 

[BornSlippy1994]

Whilst I feel that after a certain point, more ‘distance’ is a relatively moot area to improve upon, realistically very few new golfers are going to be at the point where more distance isn’t going to help them. Even if a new golfer swings the club at a tour level speed, they’re not going to be striking it well enough to see the benefits of that speed. Due to that, focusing on distance is going to improve pretty much every part of a person’s full swing fundamentals.


I also think for development, in the long run there isn’t a huge amount of point in focusing on course management, and plodding about within your ability. You might hit a respectable level quicker, but if you’re focusing on improving your game whilst accepting that you can only hit it 200 yards you’ll surely find that you plateau relatively quickly.


For example, as a relatively new golfer myself who regularly plays with two lower single digit handicappers, it is evident whose game I should focus on matching. My friend, who’s 24, is a big hitter and can be fairly erratic at times. So, whilst he has some really poor rounds, he can also have some fantastic rounds even when posting a couple of doubles as due to his length some holes are such an easy par and some are big birdie chances. In comparison, his dad who is in his mid 50s doesn’t hit the ball a great deal further than 200 yards. Due to that, the rest of his game has to be so so consistent (and is) to shoot low scores. If I was to try and emulate his playing style I’d really struggle. My approach play with long irons would have to be bang on, I’d have to get so good around the greens and from within 50 yards as some holes are unreachable in regulation, and I’d almost never be able to three putt nor fluff a shot.


Instead, my focus is on increasing how far I hit the ball through improving my ball striking. As I’ve improved I’m able to shoot some really respectable scores even with flaws in my game as the course is playing so much shorter. Don’t get me wrong, I also post some shocking scores when my timing is off but I’d never shoot as low as I do on occasion if I reigned everything in as I’m simply not a good enough golfer. Length enables players to be less consistent as it masks so many flaws.


Of course, this all depends on age and physical condition. If you’re new to the game as a 50 year old maybe this logic doesn’t apply. However, for someone such as myself who’s 23, fairly athletic and has a sporting background, it seems nonsensical to not take advantage of the inherent speed my swing has.

 

[MendieGK]

Whilst I feel that after a certain point, more ‘distance’ is a relatively moot area to improve upon, realistically very few new golfers are going to be at the point where more distance isn’t going to help them. Even if a new golfer swings the club at a tour level speed, they’re not going to be striking it well enough to see the benefits of that speed. Due to that, focusing on distance is going to improve pretty much every part of a person’s full swing fundamentals.


I also think for development, in the long run there isn’t a huge amount of point in focusing on course management, and plodding about within your ability. You might hit a respectable level quicker, but if you’re focusing on improving your game whilst accepting that you can only hit it 200 yards you’ll surely find that you plateau relatively quickly.


For example, as a relatively new golfer myself who regularly plays with two lower single digit handicappers, it is evident whose game I should focus on matching. My friend, who’s 24, is a big hitter and can be fairly erratic at times. So, whilst he has some really poor rounds, he can also have some fantastic rounds even when posting a couple of doubles as due to his length some holes are such an easy par and some are big birdie chances. In comparison, his dad who is in his mid 50s doesn’t hit the ball a great deal further than 200 yards. Due to that, the rest of his game has to be so so consistent (and is) to shoot low scores. If I was to try and emulate his playing style I’d really struggle. My approach play with long irons would have to be bang on, I’d have to get so good around the greens and from within 50 yards as some holes are unreachable in regulation, and I’d almost never be able to three putt nor fluff a shot.


Instead, my focus is on increasing how far I hit the ball through improving my ball striking. As I’ve improved I’m able to shoot some really respectable scores even with flaws in my game as the course is playing so much shorter. Don’t get me wrong, I also post some shocking scores when my timing is off but I’d never shoot as low as I do on occasion if I reigned everything in as I’m simply not a good enough golfer. Length enables players to be less consistent as it masks so many flaws.


Of course, this all depends on age and physical condition. If you’re new to the game as a 50 year old maybe this logic doesn’t apply. However, for someone such as myself who’s 23, fairly athletic and has a sporting background, it seems nonsensical to not take advantage of the inherent speed my swing has.

All top junior golfers nowadays are taught speed first, technique second.

I think people are seeing the distance importance part like we're saying accuracy isnt relevant - of course it is.

But when it come to 300yds in the rough with a normal approach to the green (not hindered by a tree, deep rough etc), statistically that will beat someone 250 on the fairway the large majority of the time.

 

[nickjdavis]

But when it come to 300yds in the rough with a normal approach to the green (not hindered by a tree, deep rough etc), statistically that will beat someone 250 on the fairway the large majority of the time.

even I wouldn't argue that 50 yards forward in very light rough where you can get a decent strike on the ball isn't going to give a golfer a significant advantage...maybe my perception of this whole thing is being skewed by the fact that where I play you don't have nice swathes of light rough giving you the opportunity of a nice strike before you get into the deep trouble.....5 yards off the short stuff and you DO have trees to contend with on pretty much every hole....the first cut of rough, where it exists, is usually pretty lush....you can miss one fairway left by three yards and be OOB.

...

 

[BornSlippy1994]

All top junior golfers nowadays are taught speed first, technique second.

I think people are seeing the distance importance part like we're saying accuracy isnt relevant - of course it is.

But when it come to 300yds in the rough with a normal approach to the green (not hindered by a tree, deep rough etc), statistically that will beat someone 250 on the fairway the large majority of the time.

I agree, I also feel that some people are under the impression that advocating people to hit the ball further implies that everyone should be swinging beyond themselves. That isn't what I'm personally arguing.

To use myself as an example again, after a few months playing I began focusing on making a full rotation. Initially this made me worse, as I'd developed a limited level of consistency with what was essentially a half swing. However, after a while my game improved and continued to improve at a decent rate. Would I have improved at that rate if I'd stuck to my safer, shorter, less powerful swing? I doubt it. Every part of my game would have had to of got so much better.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

All top junior golfers nowadays are taught speed first, technique second.

They may be at your club but that certainly isn't the case with any pros I know.

 

[MendieGK]

They may be at your club but that certainly isn't the case with any pros I know.

https://www.golfchannel.com/article...ly-fix-speed-first-and-then-accuracy-juniors/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.pr...-or-technique-in-golf-for-children?format=amp

 

[Deleted member 1147]

All top junior golfers nowadays are taught speed first, technique second.

I think people are seeing the distance importance part like we're saying accuracy isnt relevant - of course it is.

But when it come to 300yds in the rough with a normal approach to the green (not hindered by a tree, deep rough etc), statistically that will beat someone 250 on the fairway the large majority of the time.

280 or so is a good knock for most of us. If I can get it to 280 in the semi rough, without any other hinderance I'm happy enough. If the alternative is 250 in the fairway, I'd still take the 280 if that 30 yd difference means using a wedge instead of a 7 iron, or hitting a par 5 instead of laying up.


I think that there is a bit of this discussion which often gets missed. Most of the better players at any club tend to be the bigger hitters. That's largely because they hit it out of the middle most often with better technique, because they generally have their swing under more control than other members.
They hit it longer because they are better, they aren't necessarily better because they hit it longer.

For bornslippy I'd suggest that the player he's better copying, per his analogy, would be his mates Dad rather than his mate. His mate's Dad can score lower than his mate despite being a shorter hitter. If he can learn to hit it straight he will score better now, and being younger than his mate's Dad should have the potential to hit it alot further, and that should only aid his improvement.
Being long & wild is no fun.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

https://www.golfchannel.com/article...ly-fix-speed-first-and-then-accuracy-juniors/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.pr...-or-technique-in-golf-for-children?format=amp

I'm not denying that distance is an asset but all the searches I have done talk about improving both distance AND accuracy, not distance OVER accuracy. If distance is so crucial, how come I can give you 30 years age advantage and 50 yards distance advantage yet your handicap is only a couple of shots better than mine and I don't even have a shortgame! Maybe you are hitting too many recovery shots?

 

[pinberry]

even I wouldn't argue that 50 yards forward in very light rough where you can get a decent strike on the ball isn't going to give a golfer a significant advantage...maybe my perception of this whole thing is being skewed by the fact that where I play you don't have nice swathes of light rough giving you the opportunity of a nice strike before you get into the deep trouble.....5 yards off the short stuff and you DO have trees to contend with on pretty much every hole....the first cut of rough, where it exists, is usually pretty lush....you can miss one fairway left by three yards and be OOB.

...

Indeed, your perception might be skewed by the type of courses that are prevalent in the UK i.e. short parkland courses. Even where I play (6600yds Par72), there is little to be gained by bombing it 280 rather than 250. You'll still gain something, but the penalty for missing the fairway is just too big. A bomber would indeed use the driver very rarely.

But the pro game is played on long courses that are open, and fairways are not surrounded by trees.

As a general point, when 5 yards in the rough means you have to chip out, you are likely facing a tight short par 4, where distance isn't needed.

 

[Orikoru]

even I wouldn't argue that 50 yards forward in very light rough where you can get a decent strike on the ball isn't going to give a golfer a significant advantage...maybe my perception of this whole thing is being skewed by the fact that where I play you don't have nice swathes of light rough giving you the opportunity of a nice strike before you get into the deep trouble.....5 yards off the short stuff and you DO have trees to contend with on pretty much every hole....the first cut of rough, where it exists, is usually pretty lush....you can miss one fairway left by three yards and be OOB.

...

Yeah, on my course every hole is tree-lined. So if you miss a fairway by a few yards there is a good chance of a tree trunk or an overhanging branch making your shot a lot more difficult.

 

[pinberry]

All top junior golfers nowadays are taught speed first, technique second.

I think people are seeing the distance importance part like we're saying accuracy isnt relevant - of course it is.

But when it come to 300yds in the rough with a normal approach to the green (not hindered by a tree, deep rough etc), statistically that will beat someone 250 on the fairway the large majority of the time.

I think juniors are still taught technique, but they realised when they watch the PGA tour than length is a requirement. Therefore, they all tend to focus on speed a lot. I'm talking by experience, seeing what my nephew (14 yo, 1hcp) and his friends do. Mind you, to hit it far you need excellent technique because you need to hit the sweet spot first.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I think juniors are still taught technique, but they realised when they watch the PGA tour than length is a requirement. Therefore, they all tend to focus on speed a lot. I'm talking by experience, seeing what my nephew (14 yo, 1hcp) and his friends do. Mind you, to hit it far you need excellent technique because you need to hit the sweet spot first.

Agreed, it is a dangerous road to go down teaching distance first. A young kid will lunge at the ball and come over the top in an effort to hit the ball as hard as possible. Once that becomes ingrained it is hard to get out of the habit. Teach good technique first and the distance will follow naturally.

 

[BornSlippy1994]

For bornslippy I'd suggest that the player he's better copying, per his analogy, would be his mates Dad rather than his mate. His mate's Dad can score lower than his mate despite being a shorter hitter. If he can learn to hit it straight he will score better now, and being younger than his mate's Dad should have the potential to hit it alot further, and that should only aid his improvement.
Being long & wild is no fun.

My argument though is that replicating that type of player is much, much more difficult.

Other than tee shots, everything about playing golf in that kind of fashion is more difficult. I could revert to less rotation and hit it shorter, whilst hitting more fairways, but I genuinely think it would take me years to get anywhere close to the level of consistency required to shoot low whilst not hitting it very far. Alternatively, I can concentrate on hitting it a good distance (which I'm currently doing through trying to middle it more often) and allow the extra distance to make the rest of my game not need to be as good.

I think it'll be easier and quicker for me to straighten my game up whilst hitting it far, than it will to consistently hit greens with long irons, get up and down, not hit any shocking shots and consistently putt at a high standard.

Time will tell of course!

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I think it'll be easier and quicker for me to straighten my game up whilst hitting it far, than it will to consistently hit greens with long irons, get up and down, not hit any shocking shots and consistently putt at a high standard.

Time will tell of course!

You said you are quite new to golf? Don't worry, the highlighted bit is dead easy

 

[MendieGK]

Agreed, it is a dangerous road to go down teaching distance first. A young kid will lunge at the ball and come over the top in an effort to hit the ball as hard as possible. Once that becomes ingrained it is hard to get out of the habit. Teach good technique first and the distance will follow naturally.

You’re all massively over estimating the whole distance thing. I’m not suggesting you carelessly smash the ball as far as you can - both my courses are fairly long but I probably hit about 4-5 driver max a round.

Multiple pros on TV have talked about the fact you can refine technique, but learning speed at an early age is the single most important thing. At the top level you simply cannot compete unless you are a long.

 

[MendieGK]

I'm not denying that distance is an asset but all the searches I have done talk about improving both distance AND accuracy, not distance OVER accuracy. If distance is so crucial, how come I can give you 30 years age advantage and 50 yards distance advantage yet your handicap is only a couple of shots better than mine and I don't even have a shortgame! Maybe you are hitting too many recovery shots?

Only 30 years?!? You have a lot of experience over me. My handicap has fallen every year for 4 years. Yours is on the up old man. 😂