The great drive for dough putt for show debate thread.

[Whereditgo]

My thoughts:

To consider the length of the tee shot in isolation is not really appreciating the full benefit of the potential added length.

All these musings about geometry seem to be assuming that the shot goes straight, which is only going to happen when the face and path are aligned at impact. But how often does that happen? Usually there is a variance between path and face direction at impact, bearing in mind that path varies much less from swing to swing than face presentation does.

So lets say on the approach shot the path is straight down the target line and the club face is presented 4 deg closed to that path. The ball will curve far more with a long iron than a pitching wedge owing to the different spin rates. If the target line is the centre of the green both strokes would miss the target left, but the wedge would likely still be on the green whereas a long iron would likely miss the green left with the same amount of error.

My understanding of the strokes gained data and Scott Fawcett Decade strategy is that a wedge from the semi produces better scoring over time than a long iron from the middle of the fairway, so being longer off the tee means less club needed for the approach shot as a result of being closer to the green and the added swing speed carrying over into all clubs.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

The bomb and gouge theory is great if the rough isn't penal but as soon as you have stuff like heather, gorse and knee high cabbage where you can only advance the ball a few yards accuracy becomes much more important.

 

[clubchamp98]

My thoughts:

To consider the length of the tee shot in isolation is not really appreciating the full benefit of the potential added length.

All these musings about geometry seem to be assuming that the shot goes straight, which is only going to happen when the face and path are aligned at impact. But how often does that happen? Usually there is a variance between path and face direction at impact, bearing in mind that path varies much less from swing to swing than face presentation does.

So lets say on the approach shot the path is straight down the target line and the club face is presented 4 deg closed to that path. The ball will curve far more with a long iron than a pitching wedge owing to the different spin rates. If the target line is the centre of the green both strokes would miss the target left, but the wedge would likely still be on the green whereas a long iron would likely miss the green left with the same amount of error.

My understanding of the strokes gained data and Scott Fawcett Decade strategy is that a wedge from the semi produces better scoring over time than a long iron from the middle of the fairway, so being longer off the tee means less club needed for the approach shot as a result of being closer to the green and the added swing speed carrying over into all clubs.

Yes but if that same golfer is hitting it 280/300 yds off the tee with a 4* closed face he might never see his ball again or he’s playing out of the trees.

 

[clubchamp98]

The bomb and gouge theory is great if the rough isn't penal but as soon as you have stuff like heather, gorse and knee high cabbage where you can only advance the ball a few yards accuracy becomes much more important.

Yes and that’s why the pros have ball spotters.

They should ban spotters and make the pros find their own ball !
I think they might change their game slightly.

 

[Jimaroid]

I think… though not sure as you’re not the only one suffering flu at the moment, that strokes gained actually tries to cover what you’re suggesting.

I've been using some of my sickness downtime to re-read Broadie's original paper and yes, it does but it also doesn't. It does do some probability modelling but only for putting! I haven't gone a read the referenced papers on the models they're building upon but it does appear similar to what I was thinking. So that's cool but I don't understand how that fits in the comparisons they make in other areas of the game why they didn't build similar models.

It's a good paper to read but I've still got issues with it that I can't challenge due to a lack of mathematic ability. One thing I'd forgotten, it classifies long game as anything over 100 yards. It doesn't single out driving as the gain which I think a lot of us in this "drive for show" thread do. This sentence in particular stood out: "When the three broad skill categories are further divided, approach and tee shots in the 150-200 yard range are seen to have the highest correlation with total strokes gained, with a correlation of 74%."

So when people say long game, what do they actually think it means?

 

[Whereditgo]

Yes but if that same golfer is hitting it 280/300 yds off the tee with a 4* closed face he might never see his ball again or he’s playing out of the trees.

Good point, though generally there is a much bigger target off the tee and that's where knowing what your dispersion is so that you can pick the optimum target comes in.

 

[Backsticks]

I've been using some of my sickness downtime to re-read Broadie's original paper and yes, it does but it also doesn't. It does do some probability modelling but only for putting! I haven't gone a read the referenced papers on the models they're building upon but it does appear similar to what I was thinking. So that's cool but I don't understand how that fits in the comparisons they make in other areas of the game why they didn't build similar models.

It's a good paper to read but I've still got issues with it that I can't challenge due to a lack of mathematic ability. One thing I'd forgotten, it classifies long game as anything over 100 yards. It doesn't single out driving as the gain which I think a lot of us in this "drive for show" thread do. This sentence in particular stood out: "When the three broad skill categories are further divided, approach and tee shots in the 150-200 yard range are seen to have the highest correlation with total strokes gained, with a correlation of 74%."

So when people say long game, what do they actually think it means?

Drive for show, does refer to driver exclusively as it suggests. Long game for me anyway means every shot that is a full swing up to a wedge. So depends a little on the distance you can hit a wedge.
Referring to long game in the general discussion, it does have two components though - full driver length from the tee, and, the compounded gain that also brings to the second shot - 50 yards longer off the tee puts more of your second shots into that 150-200 range, and in it, probably hitting a couple of irons shorter as well. There is little point looking at strokes gained from 220 yards, if the long man has already put his drive to 170. It isnt even a contest.

 

[Backache]

Broadies conclusion in his book about is that the difference in levels between amateur golfers of different abilities is:
28% driving
39% approach play
19% short game other than putting
14% putting

When specifically talking about winning at PGA level winners gained more through putting than driving when they won.

 

[CountLippe]

Broadies conclusion in his book about is that the difference in levels between amateur golfers of different abilities is:
28% driving
39% approach play
19% short game other than putting
14% putting

When specifically talking about winning at PGA level winners gained more through putting than driving when they won.

That actually makes sense. You don't see many mid/high handicapers who are consistently good with a 6/7 iron and vice versa.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Drive for dough, putt for even more dough on top of that

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

My scoring and matchplay are improving as I hole more putts. Sorted yes? Hmmm. Why am I holing more putts? Cos I’m hitting my approach shots closer…and why that? Cos I am hitting tee shots straighter and a bit further and so I can ‘dial-in’ better from 150yds in. Damn. Still not clear on the debate question.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

My scoring and matchplay are improving as I hole more putts. Sorted yes? Hmmm. Why am I holing more putts? Cos I’m hitting my approach shots closer…and why that? Cos I am hitting tee shots straighter and a bit further and so I can ‘dial-in’ better from 150yds in. Damn. Still not clear on the debate question.

It is. Just look up to post 1,032 - it's really quite simple

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It is. Just look up to post 1,032 - it's really quite simple

Spose I’ve still got to hole the putts

 

[Jimaroid]

So after all that, it seems that the 200+ par-3 is the truest measure of a golfer. As it combines all qualities of distance, accuracy and putting into a single score to par without much observational or statistical noise.

"Approximately 200 yard par-3 for dough" doesn't have much of a ring to it but that is something I can believe in.

If I could get down in (close to) 3 from within 200 yards more often my handicap would be low single figures and my limited length off the tee will never be a problem.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Can’t disagree with the GOAT

Watch this reel https://www.facebook.com/share/r/QeVk4TDu7Bo7YX7o/?mibextid=UalRPS

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Can’t disagree with the GOAT

Watch this reel https://www.facebook.com/share/r/QeVk4TDu7Bo7YX7o/?mibextid=UalRPS

You can because Woods has never been known for his accurate driving so when he did drive well the rest of his game meant he was in contention.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

You can because Woods has never been known for his accurate driving so when he did drive well the rest of his game meant he was in contention.

He was long though, which is all that matters

 

[Backsticks]

Tigerproofing anyone ?

 

[Backache]

I seem to remember on tight UK links courses he won by playing irons off the tee at times.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

He was long though, which is all that matters

Yes, often a long way into the cabbage and those were the weeks he was nowhere to be seen. Hoylake was the classic example, 71 irons off the tee and gave up so much distance to the rest of the field but he kept it in play and won comfortably.