Do you think good golfers get into more trouble than they should when driving?

[rckwd]

Volunteered at the Viking the past two years. Watched Will MacKenzie in the overtime hole, hit an amazing hybrid second shot, over water, while the other two guys had to lay up.

You know...the difference between me and the pros isn't necessarily the shots, its the consistency. I can make the 275-300 yd drives and the draw and the fade...it the ability to do it on demand. THAT is why I began this thread.....sometimes we get so tied up in trying to be better than the next guy...we forget the fundamentals of making the safest shot. I know that is the difference between THEM AND US; the ability to make those shots. But sometimes, you have to think they are human also, and they begin to out-think their ability that got them there. ..............just a thought.

I may be totally wrong.....but they got where they are the same way I am ...with one club to the ground like me......and they are susceptible to the same mistakes as I make...just not as much.

[deronsizemore]

Regardless, you are correct - there have been many comments inferring that the PGA pros wouldn't shoot so well without the cushy extras they have on the tour (caddy, no lost balls, multiple rounds to prepare, yardage books, etc). After giving this some thought, here's my take on why you see these comments.

Sure, bad shots are a part of golf and no player is immune. It's the PGA Tour though. It's the top golfers in the world playing against each other on the most difficult courses. They are the most consistent players on in the world but that doesn't mean they don't have their bad rounds where they shoot an 80; that's golf and it happens to everyone. Just because they are pros doesn't mean they should shoot under par every single round. I mean Tiger's scoring average is 69 or so? He averages 3 under par and that's the best on tour. It's crazy to assume that they all should be under par every round when the best player in the world only averages a couple under per round. I don't know if your handicap is correctly listed or not, but maybe it's where I've gotten my game to a point where I am capable of shooting under par most anywhere I play but at the same time I'm just as capable of shooting a 79. It's just difficult for me to put into words I guess of how good those guys really are and the fact that they hit a bad shot every once in a while shows just how consistent they actually are. They are able to hit a bad shot, recover and still shoot some unbelievable scores. The Tom Watson analogy doesn't mean anything if you ask me. Tom Watson has always been a good player over there in the wind and links golf. He likes that style of play and as he said yesterday, his experience and knowledge of the game allow him to compete over there with the wind, rain, etc. He knows how to manage himself in the worst conditions. Asking why he can shoot 65 over there but not at Augusta is easy... Augusta plays completely different than Turnberry or any links style golf over there. Augusta has been lengthened to 7400 yards or so and probably players longer than that given all the hills. Tom Watson at age 59 just isn't capable of competing there anymore, but he is capable of playing well at any given moment when the conditions are hard and he can get some roll and not have hit long irons into every green like he would probably be doing at Augusta. It's just that the better I get the more I realize how good the guys are on tour. I feel like I'm a good golfer and I can tell you right now I'd likely make zero money playing on something like the Hooter's tour and to think that majority of the guys on the Hooter's Tour (or other tours) would make zero money on the PGA Tour really puts things into perspective of just how good they are.

[iacas]

Sure, these guys on any given day, can hit an amazing shot. But they're just as likely to drop it in the water on their next hole.

What are you talking about?

First you talk about how players don't play against each other - they play against the course. Then you talk about their results which, by definition, are against other players . And, sorry, pros aren't "just as likely" to hit it into the water. They're incredibly consistent - shot to shot, week to week. They wouldn't be on the PGA Tour or even the Nationwide Tour if they weren't incredibly consistent. Hell, consistency may be the most important thing - look at the older guys with the unorthodox swings - they found a way to consistently get to the same impact positions time and time again. That's all the game is about : consistency. If you could hit exactly the same shot with every club in your bag every time, it wouldn't matter if your driving distance was only 250 yards - you could win on the PGA Tour. And a pro on a local course? They'll shoot under par on their worst days. Heck, Vijay could probably do it with a set of lefty women's clubs. They could miss every green short side with no fear because the greens likely don't have the slopes and speed they're used to playing, nor the length. They'll get on virtually every par five in two.

If they are so good, why aren't they all shooting under par every week?

Because the courses are 7321 yards and have ratings of 78.6...? Gee whiz... Even on their worst days the vast majority of the guys would still have a negative differential.

[deronsizemore]

And a pro on a local course? They'll shoot under par on their worst days. Heck, Vijay could probably do it with a set of lefty women's clubs. They could miss every green short side with no fear because the greens likely don't have the slopes and speed they're used to playing, nor the length. They'll get on virtually every par five in two.

Exactly. I just played in a city tournament here where you either have to be a member at a club in the city or live within city limits. The tournament is played over four days at four separate municipal courses and the winning score was -11... by a 16 year old. The PGA Tour guys would demolish most local courses.

[cphpaco]

when you're at a particular skill level there are more factors to think about rather than a straight shot. Trajectory, shot shape and power. Many good golfers will try to take advantage of their shot shaping skill to overcome difficulties which also causes errors on the other hand. At many times, ppl also try to adjust their swing which involves more thinking and mistakes too.

[lumpuckeroo]

I would not say they get in more trouble but they have the ability to get in more. If you hit a drive 220 yards and have your club face open or close 1 degree you probably stay in the fairway. Now increase that to 320 yards and you are not in the fairway.

Just look at the fairways hit or GIR stats for the pros, they are the kind of stats we all would hope for.

[pinhigh27]

Did I miss the memo? Is today opposite day?

It might just be me, I regard him as a bomb and gouger, he hits driver a lot of times when he doesnt have to, and he really doesn't care if its in the rough or not. He plays great out of the rough.

[rckwd]

They're incredibly consistent - shot to shot, week to week. They wouldn't be on the PGA Tour or even the Nationwide Tour if they weren't incredibly consistent. Hell, consistency may be the most important thing - look at the older guys with the unorthodox swings - they found a way to consistently get to the same impact positions time and time again. That's all the game is about

Exactly...that is what I said a few threads ago.

[shankapotamus]

Volunteered at the Viking the past two years. Watched Will MacKenzie in the overtime hole, hit an amazing hybrid second shot, over water, while the other two guys had to lay up.

What?!?!? If you're making birdies to take the lead, then the people who are in 2nd, 3rd, etc. are going to have to take risks to catch up. The more risks they have to take, the more chance of making a bad mistake.

[iacas]

It might just be me, I regard him as a bomb and gouger

It's just you.

he hits driver a lot of times when he doesnt have to

Since when? He hit driver three times yesterday at the Open Championship, didn't hit it all that often at Congressional or Muirfield Village.

and he really doesn't care if its in the rough or not.

Today can't be opposite day if yesterday was opposite day. Perhaps we're just not talking about the same Tiger Woods. I'm talking about the one in real life, not the one you play in your video games.

[steve8820]

What?!?!? PGA tour fairways are a dream compared to the tracks I play.

hahaha....Now this is a funny post. Obviously, written by someone who has not been to a Tour event and watched these guys in person. The slogan "these guys are good" is correct, but an understatement....

And... I can guarantee if you take a Tour player to your local sh$t, cow pasture, muni course that they would shred it. Do you really believe that a caddy and a yardage book is the difference between them and you. What a joke!!!!!!

[Leftygolfer]

Yes they would kill my course with no practice round, caddy, and not really focusing. 6700 yards, medium speed greens, +4 handicap, I think anyone on tour would be in the 60's on a bad day. Low 60s if they are on.

Yes, the longer you are the margin for error is less, but I want that problem.

[rckwd]

hahaha....Now this is a funny post. Obviously, written by someone who has not been to a Tour event and watched these guys in person.

hmmmmmmmmmm....how many times have you been to Augusta?

[rckwd]

I have seen them play....you are missing the meaning of the thread

[steve8820]

I have seen them play....you are missing the meaning of the thread

Yes, my response was off topic of your original question, but I was just so thrown off by your comments that I forgot the thread topic. I'm speaking of the comments about how they wouldn't shoot an outstanding number at your local muni without yardage books, people finding their balls, etc...... Just seemed like a severe underestimation on how good the pros actually are. Many times TV doesn't do it justice.

[iacas]

hmmmmmmmmmm....how many times have you been to Augusta?

Why are you replying? His comments were in reply to pittpanther's post.

[rckwd]

Why are you replying? His comments were in reply to pittpanther's post.

No in his initial post he said "this thread" ERIK

That is why I replied

[iacas]

No in his initial post he said "this thread" ERIK

I think you've confused yourself. The only person to have said the two words you just quoted is you. The steve8820 fellow did say "this post" and QUOTED a post (by pittpanther), to which he was clearly replying.

He wasn't talking to you. It's right here .