What’s your favourite layup distance?

[Deleted member 1147]

This thread has gone massively off track. The title is YOUR layup distance.

Well it depends, how fast are the greens, is the pin tucked, am I on a PGA tour course or my home track, am I laying up into the rough or fairway, is there water to carry or not?

PS - the answers is, as close as possible (assuming that is the best choice at the time)

 

[bobmac]

On one hand you have tour pros who lay up to say 100yds because they are good from that distance.
On the other hand you have many mid to high h/caps who lay up to 100 yards because they are less bad from 100 than they are from 50

 

[r0wly86]

You're using specific individual holes and scenarios to state that 100 yards is better.

Nobody is debating that there are times where 100 out will be better than 40.

But over thousands of shots by hundereds of players over all types of courses players are better off, in general, being closer to the hole.

That is was have been statistically PROVEN.

Qualitative analysis in the corporate world is often just required to help people who don't understand numbers.

That cricket analogy is awful.

The cricket analogy was poor, best my brain could do I'm afraid.

I'm sorry but that in bold is a lot of rubbish, all scientific reports will have qualitative analysis as well and quantitative, it is nothing to do with "understanding numbers" but giving context to the numbers. That is all I have been arguing, without full analysis at best making wide assumptions is poor at worst totally erroneous.

one my latest stat reports was on planning permission condition breaches.

1 borough had 17% of conditions breached
another borough had 52% of conditions breached.

quantitatively obviously we should be putting more effort in the second borough.

But then add in the qualitative report that the majority of the breaches in the second borough were relating to travel plans because the online system was down for months, and the former borough's breaches were fundamental to construction and noise activity and even not building what they had been given permission for.

A very simple example of how qualitative data completely changes how we interpret the quantitative data

 

[r0wly86]

Now you're just looking silly. (ER)

Go on the pga website and look, tell me what it is you don't understand. They are broken down by category , distance, fairway, rough, sand , fringe, distance
Its amazing how in depth they are.

don't bother replying, I'm leaving this thread now.

But just because YOU don't understand statistical analysis doesn't mean what I said was silly

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Well it depends, how fast are the greens, is the pin tucked, am I on a PGA tour course or my home track, am I laying up into the rough or fairway, is there water to carry or not?

PS - the answers is, as close as possible (assuming that is the best choice at the time)

If some forummers were playing that 520 yard par 4 at Pebble they could be laying up at 300 yards 🤣

 

[robinthehood]

The cricket analogy was poor, best my brain could do I'm afraid.

I'm sorry but that in bold is a lot of rubbish, all scientific reports will have qualitative analysis as well and quantitative, it is nothing to do with "understanding numbers" but giving context to the numbers. That is all I have been arguing, without full analysis at best making wide assumptions is poor at worst totally erroneous.

one my latest stat reports was on planning permission condition breaches.

1 borough had 17% of conditions breached
another borough had 52% of conditions breached.

quantitatively obviously we should be putting more effort in the second borough.

But then add in the qualitative report that the majority of the breaches in the second borough were relating to travel plans because the online system was down for months, and the former borough's breaches were fundamental to construction and noise activity and even not building what they had been given permission for.

A very simple example of how qualitative data completely changes how we interpret the quantitative data

😂😂😂😂😂
2 decades of stats tell us the answer, but you'd rather ignore it.

 

[robinthehood]

don't bother replying, I'm leaving this thread now.

But just because YOU don't understand statistical analysis doesn't mean what I said was silly

It does. Statistically proven by number of replies of the same nature 😂😉

 

[garyinderry]

On one hand you have tour pros who lay up to say 100yds because they are good from that distance.
On the other hand you have many mid to high h/caps who lay up to 100 yards because they are less bad from 100 than they are from 50

Good point. The pros are laying up as they have a 100yard flat no wind shot nailed down that they can spin at the hole.

Others are trying to avoid a half shot chilli dip as the yanks call it or blading it into oblivion.


The pros are laying up as they are chopping out of thick rough and trying to advance it an extra 50yards ontop means they could loose control and end up in the rough again and make double.

If they can the pros will ideally try to advance it into a green side bunker.

 

[TheDiablo]

The cricket analogy was poor, best my brain could do I'm afraid.

I'm sorry but that in bold is a lot of rubbish, all scientific reports will have qualitative analysis as well and quantitative, it is nothing to do with "understanding numbers" but giving context to the numbers. That is all I have been arguing, without full analysis at best making wide assumptions is poor at worst totally erroneous.

one my latest stat reports was on planning permission condition breaches.

1 borough had 17% of conditions breached
another borough had 52% of conditions breached.

quantitatively obviously we should be putting more effort in the second borough.

But then add in the qualitative report that the majority of the breaches in the second borough were relating to travel plans because the online system was down for months, and the former borough's breaches were fundamental to construction and noise activity and even not building what they had been given permission for.

A very simple example of how qualitative data completely changes how we interpret the quantitative data

No, you've been arguing that pros lay up to a preferred yardage is better than hitting it as close as poss, based on a chat with a pro who reckons he plays on greens running at 15, when data explicitly shows his methods are antiquated.

You don't need qualitative analysis when a sample size is that large and that conclusive. Just data and common sense.

Your local borough monthly report doesn't have the luxury of scale and therefore needs context to flush it out. An equivalent would be using the data from a single event.

 

[Norrin Radd]

cant say i have a favourite lay up distance ,but i dont mind anything from 100 to 150 yds as i can generally hit the green from there ,[but not always unfortunately] im of the get it as close as i can brigade as im sure i get it closer from closer .

 

[IanM]

......favourite distance?


Gimme distance

 

[Capella]

On one hand you have tour pros who lay up to say 100yds because they are good from that distance.
On the other hand you have many mid to high h/caps who lay up to 100 yards because they are less bad from 100 than they are from 50

Good point. My preferred lay-up distance is the one I am least afraid to hit the next shot from

 

[UlyssesSky]

There's one point we're missing here that helps explain why some pros prefer to lay up instead of just trying to get as near to the green as possible (besides special situations like tucked pins that require a certain amount of spin):

In order to get closer to the green, the lay-up shot has to be longer.

If we're talking about a situation where a tour pro can't reach the green, he's probably at least 270 yards out. According to Trackman, the PGA Tour average with a 3 Wood is just over 240 yards (carry) so that would get him within 30 yards of the green. In order to leave himself 100 yards, he would need to hit his lay-up 70 yards shorter, or about 170 yards, which based on the same stats is a typical 7 iron.

I would say a tour pro will put his 7 iron in the fairway 10/10 and in the exact sport that gives him the best angle at least 8/10. With the 3 wood at maximum Distance, however, the chances are much bigger that he ends up in the rough or short-sided.

So what's most likely the deciding factor when thinking about laying up or not is the area around the green and the pin position. No trouble in front of the green (wide entrance, no rough or bunkers) and a back pin-position? Go for it. Narrow entrance with lots of trouble an a pin tucked behind a front bunker? Better lay up at 100 yards (or whatever that players favorite distance might be).

 

[Piece]

My fav layup distance is anything that requires a full shot, thus 110 to 160. More towards 150 is ideal.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

To the people who prefer having a full shot, rather than hit it as close as you can(safely and assuming no other reasons why you would not).

Have you ever done a comparison on the course (say hit 5 from 25 yards, 50 yards, 75 yards, 100 and 150 yards each distance)? and did the results reflect your thoughts ?

Just intrigued, hence the question, the difference for me is massive and almost everyone I have ever played with, it is so noticeable that people are more accurate nearer. I would have guessed, the chances of me hitting a green from 100 to 150 is probably less than 60% on average, whereas from 50 or less yards I would be nearer 90%.

 

[Orikoru]

To the people who prefer having a full shot, rather than hit it as close as you can(safely and assuming no other reasons why you would not).

Have you ever done a comparison on the course (say hit 5 from 25 yards, 50 yards, 75 yards, 100 and 150 yards each distance)? and did the results reflect your thoughts ?

Just intrigued, hence the question, the difference for me is massive and almost everyone I have ever played with, it is so noticeable that people are more accurate nearer. I would have guessed, the chances of me hitting a green from 100 to 150 is probably less than 60% on average, whereas from 50 or less yards I would be nearer 90%.

My issue is that I still don't know what my 70 yard shot even is, so that is a horror distance for me. Just provokes indecision. I don't have access to a proper practise area so the only time I can practise it is the odd occasion it comes up in rounds. That's the reason why I wouldn't want to leave that particular distance, as an example. Whereas 100 yards I know is a full 50° so I have more confidence there. I'd be very confident that I'm more accurate from 100 than from 70, because from 70 there's a good chance that I hit my 56° 20 yards short or 15 yards long by mistake, whereas hitting full shots from 100, as long as I hit them decently, they're going to go between 95 and 105, say.

 

[robinthehood]

My issue is that I still don't know what my 70 yard shot even is, so that is a horror distance for me. Just provokes indecision. I don't have access to a proper practise area so the only time I can practise it is the odd occasion it comes up in rounds. That's the reason why I wouldn't want to leave that particular distance, as an example. Whereas 100 yards I know is a full 50° so I have more confidence there. I'd be very confident that I'm more accurate from 100 than from 70, because from 70 there's a good chance that I hit my 56° 20 yards short or 15 yards long by mistake, whereas hitting full shots from 100, as long as I hit them decently, they're going to go between 95 and 105, say.

Without ever having seen you play, id be willing to bet you're more accurate from 70 than you are 100yds

If you have a 200 yd shot are you really hitting 2 wedges?

 

[Orikoru]

Without ever having seen you play, id be willing to bet you're more accurate from 70 than you are 100yds

If you have a 200 yd shot are you really hitting 2 wedges?

You'd be wrong. I am a mess from 70 yards. But it's just a case of finding a shot that works for that distance. I plan to try a kind of half punch with the PW next time and see if that brings more consistency. And it's really just 70 yards at the minute, 50 is fine, 60 at a push, 80-85 is alright.

Sorry I don't understand the question on the second part.

 

[bobmac]

You'd be wrong. I am a mess from 70 yards. But it's just a case of finding a shot that works for that distance. I plan to try a kind of half punch with the PW next time and see if that brings more consistency. And it's really just 70 yards at the minute, 50 is fine, 60 at a push, 80-85 is alright.

How do you hit the 50 yard shot?

For me it would be PW, bottom of the grip, 9-3
So 60 yards would be 9 iron bottom of the grip, 9-3
70 yards 8 iron bottom of the grip, 9-3
etc

 

[Orikoru]

How do you hit the 50 yard shot?

For me it would be PW, bottom of the grip, 9-3
So 60 yards would be 9 iron bottom of the grip, 9-3
70 yards 8 iron bottom of the grip, 9-3
etc

From 50 yards I hit a half swing 50° wedge. I did try half swinging an 8 for 70 yards, but it's a bit too low trajectory so if I give it slightly too much it races miles by. I'm going to try the half swing PW as I said, or maybe the 9 if PW isn't enough.