Has anyone played a round only using their "money" club(s) or played one taking out their money clubs

[iacas]

Originally Posted by ctyankee

Obviously, you can't take that idea too far ... but it is amazing how many people try to run the ball up toward a par 5 so that they are stuck with an awkward 35 yard 'feel' shot rather than be back farther and have a full wedge in from a distance they know they're good at.  How basic is that?

Not as basic as you'd think. Stats show that the closer you are to the hole, the closer you'll put your second shot. The average amateur does BETTER from 35 yards than 100 yards or a "full wedge" distance. They do better from 50 than 70. And they do better from 10 than 20, too.

Unless there's trouble (30 yards in the fairway is better than 20 in the bunker), and you can try to avoid short-siding yourself, it's better to get as close to the hole as you can.

[Sandy Trap]

Originally Posted by iacas

Not as basic as you'd think. Stats show that the closer you are to the hole, the closer you'll put your second shot. The average amateur does BETTER from 35 yards than 100 yards or a "full wedge" distance. They do better from 50 than 70. And they do better from 10 than 20, too.

Unless there's trouble (30 yards in the fairway is better than 20 in the bunker), and you can try to avoid short-siding yourself, it's better to get as close to the hole as you can.

Good to know.  Thanks for sharing those stats.

[ctyankee]

Originally Posted by iacas

Not as basic as you'd think. Stats show that the closer you are to the hole, the closer you'll put your second shot. The average amateur does BETTER from 35 yards than 100 yards or a "full wedge" distance. They do better from 50 than 70. And they do better from 10 than 20, too.

Unless there's trouble (30 yards in the fairway is better than 20 in the bunker), and you can try to avoid short-siding yourself, it's better to get as close to the hole as you can.

Yeah and I'm sure the "average" golfer does better with a six iron off the tee then with a driver on a par 4 - 435 yard hole.  As a golf instructor, is that what you advise your players to do?

Do your "stats" take into account what happens when your "average" golfer now tries to hit a 4 iron to get to 35 yards versus a 7 iron to 80 yards?  Do they take into account that in executing that longer approach shot to 35 yards, the fairway is more narrow and more likely to be a pitch shot from the rough?  Do they take into account the lack of distance control that an "average" golf has with a longer approach shot versus a shorter approach shot?  That 35 yard touch shot to a green ... do your stats take into account how that shot holds up under pressure of a match, tournament or league play?  Do your stats take into account that bad golfers following a strategy of 'closer is better' have a lot of experience hitting shots that will keep them mired as bad golfers rather than the shots truly needed to improve.  It's a vicious cycle.  Sure they are better at a shot they hit a lot versus the shot they take less frequently.  Then what?

What does the "average" amateur shoot for a round?  105?  More?  Whatever that may be, my advice is definitely NOT meant for them.  So, if that is you, please read no further.

Hopefully, most golfers that come to this forum have a real interest in getting better.  And and the only way to truly get better is to learn course management AND to play the shots required of a better golfer and gain experience executing those shots.  Frankly, if a golfer does not have a wedge game he can count on he will NEVER be a really good golfer.  Your simple stats may be true, but stats are only helpful if they matter.  Your strategy would keep a golfer from being a better golfer as he or she following your advice would avoid hitting full wedge shots to the green and kiss their chance of getting to be a better player bye-bye.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by ctyankee

Yeah and I'm sure the "average" golfer does better with a six iron off the tee then with a driver on a par 4 - 435 yard hole.  As a golf instructor, is that what you advise your players to do?

That's not the same thing at all.

Originally Posted by ctyankee

Do your "stats" take into account what happens when your "average" golfer now tries to hit a 4 iron to get to 35 yards versus a 7 iron to 80 yards?  Do they take into account that in executing that longer approach shot to 35 yards, the fairway is more narrow and more likely to be a pitch shot from the rough?  Do they take into account the lack of distance control that an "average" golf has with a longer approach shot versus a shorter approach shot? That 35 yard touch shot to a green ... do your stats take into account how that shot holds up under pressure of a match, tournament or league play?

In order:

1. Nope. But a thinned 4I will probably end up in as good a position as a regular 7I, maybe better. And it's not like the golfers who can't hit a 4I can hit their 7I all that well either.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes. People are less nervous over a 35 yard shot than a 100-yard shot.

Originally Posted by ctyankee

Do your stats take into account that bad golfers following a strategy of 'closer is better' have a lot of experience hitting shots that will keep them mired as bad golfers rather than the shots truly needed to improve.  It's a vicious cycle.  Sure they are better at a shot they hit a lot versus the shot they take less frequently.  Then what?

Look, don't listen to what the stats say. I don't really care.

But the stats on this are clear. Players of all abilities finish closer to the hole when they face a shorter shot. That's it. The old rule about "lay up to a comfortable yardage" is bogus.

Maybe there's a distance you absolutely hate - say, 55 yards. Great. Avoid that one. If you can get to 35, get there, otherwise stay back at 65. But don't lay back at 100 just because that's a good full swing yardage for your sand wedge or something.

The stats are really, really clear on this. I don't care if you don't want to learn from them.

I'd wager a bunch of money that if you and I could round up a bunch of 9-27 handicappers, and we put them all at 80-100 yards and then put them at 25-45 yards, they'd average closer to the hole from the shorter distance than the longer one (by a good bit too).

Again, if there's not too much trouble (water, bunkers for a lot of golfers), golfers of all levels are better off being closer to the hole.

Originally Posted by ctyankee

Hopefully, most golfers that come to this forum have a real interest in getting better. And and the only way to truly get better is to learn course management AND to play the shots required of a better golfer and gain experience executing those shots. Frankly, if a golfer does not have a wedge game he can count on he will NEVER be a really good golfer. Your simple stats may be true, but stats are only helpful if they matter. Your strategy would keep a golfer from being a better golfer as he or she following your advice would avoid hitting full wedge shots to the green and kiss their chance of getting to be a better player bye-bye.

Huh?

See if you can follow along here:

A "better player" is the guy who shoots lower scores.

Golfers shoot lower scores when they get the ball closer to the hole.

Golfers get the ball closer to the hole when they leave themselves shorter shots to the hole.

These statistics directly speak to course management. I'm not advocating that you don't find your yardages for wedges - heck, mine are taped to the undersides of my shafts - I'm simply saying that statistics don't back up the idea of "lay up to a comfortable yardage." You're better off getting closer than laying back.

[carrx]

In my men's club, one of our monthly tournaments used to be a "4-Club" tournament, with putter counting as one of the clubs.  We'd play blue tees (6461 yds, 70.9, 126) and have a group score format (1 gross, 2 net, or something like that).

I used my 4-wood, 8-iron, GW and putter (some guys did putt with their hybrids, or whatever).  In my last year in that format I shot a 77 as a 4 handicap.  Granted 6400 yds isn't so long that you can't reach the par-4s (the course is on the short side, but full of mature trees and some hairy doglegs), but the experience taught me a valuable lesson about course management.

The old guys in the club eventually voted for a change in format, but I really enjoyed that tourney...

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by iacas

But the stats on this are clear. Players of all abilities finish closer to the hole when they face a shorter shot. That's it. The old rule about "lay up to a comfortable yardage" is bogus.

Maybe there's a distance you absolutely hate - say, 55 yards. Great. Avoid that one. If you can get to 35, get there, otherwise stay back at 65. But don't lay back at 100 just because that's a good full swing yardage for your sand wedge or something.

The stats are really, really clear on this. I don't care if you don't want to learn from them.

Ctyankee, think of it this way. Would you rather face a full sand/lob wedge at 100 yards out, or a much shorter pitch from around 30-40 yards? If you have problems with pitches, your strategy will work, but most people have a better chance of hitting a clean pitch closer than they do a full swing. It's an inherent part of accuracy, because one inch off line at your intermediate target on a 100 yard shot will leave you a longer putt than 1 inch off your intermediate target from 30 yards. There is less time to carry, less distance to slice/hook, and a larger margin for error resulting in a much better chance at coming close. I realize distance control may be a factor, but you should know your 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and full swings with your wedges for both with a straight face and an open face. This will likely leave you with one distance that will be close to the one you need between just a sand and lob wedge with those yardages known.

[Tyler]

And Ctyankee, you sorta said the opposite of what you're advocating when you typed, " Do they take into account the lack of distance control that an "average" golf has with a longer approach shot versus a shorter approach shot? "

[ctyankee]

Originally Posted by iacas

Nope. But a thinned 4I will probably end up in as good a position as a regular 7I, maybe better. And it's not like the golfers who can't hit a 4I can hit their 7I all that well either.

Thanks for that.  No need to discuss any further.

[ctyankee]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Ctyankee, think of it this way. Would you rather face a full sand/lob wedge at 100 yards out, or a much shorter pitch from around 30-40 yards? If you have problems with pitches, your strategy will work, but most people have a better chance of hitting a clean pitch closer than they do a full swing. It's an inherent part of accuracy, because one inch off line at your intermediate target on a 100 yard shot will leave you a longer putt than 1 inch off your intermediate target from 30 yards. There is less time to carry, less distance to slice/hook, and a larger margin for error resulting in a much better chance at coming close. I realize distance control may be a factor, but you should know your 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and full swings with your wedges for both with a straight face and an open face. This will likely leave you with one distance that will be close to the one you need between just a sand and lob wedge with those yardages known.

Hopefully, we can agree that there is a difference between a full wedge and a full swing.  I don't doubt that was your intent when you're talking about a pitch, but just to be clear.

The book Caddie Sense is real good read.  A bit dry, but full of insight.  It is by Michael Carrick, longtime caddie for Tom Kite.  He sums up the difference between pro golfers and those he sees in sooooo many pro/am events he's done through the years.  Those golfers play the course from tee to green, pro golfers play the course from green to tee.  The importance of this is that every golfer (pro or amateur) has their 'magic number' the distance they can repeatedly hit scoring clubs to the target.

That's why you see caddies sweating out the layup distance on a long par 5.  He is trying to get his player to his magic number as the wedge is a scoring club for a pro or good amateur.  The last thing he wants is to put his player at a distance, he is not GREAT at.  That's why I said a few posts back, it's that basic.  Get the golfer to his best distances, the points he can maximize his ability to score.  Same thing for amateurs that want to become better amateurs.  Whatever your wedge(s) may be, know what distances are 'money' for you.  That the distance you are comfortable from and can hit under tournament pressure.

So, my approach is to get to the distances I'm good at with the three wedges I carry, and to rely on the stroke I can make with confidence.  Not much different from a basketball player who goes to the spots on the floor he is 'money' with his jump shot.

Your approach is: learn the distances you can hit a 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and Full shots for each wedge and how that varies when you open the club face.  That's eight distances for each wedge.  So, you're hitting close and adjusting your shot to the result and I'm avoiding those touch shots.  Said slightly differently, the exception for me is the touch shot and the exception for you is a rather standard distance as you think being closer is better.

So tell me ... if closer is better why are the pros laying up longer distances with their wedges?

Originally Posted by Tyler

And Ctyankee, you sorta said the opposite of what you're advocating when you typed, "Do they take into account the lack of distance control that an "average" golf has with a longer approach shot versus a shorter approach shot?"

Not in the slightest.  The context was: to just look at how well amateurs execute a shot (pitch to the green) without also understanding the risks taken to get to that point is completely worthless.  It's about as worthless as talking to someone that claims that most golfers are just about as good hitting a 4 iron as they are a 7 iron ... that kind of worthless.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by ctyankee

The importance of this is that every golfer (pro or amateur) has their 'magic number' the distance they can repeatedly hit scoring clubs to the target.

And you know where that's important? When they can choose to lay up between 75 and 95 yards, they're best off trying to hit it to 87 (making this up) because "87" is one of their better yardages - they have that swing down pretty well and are better from 87 than they are from 78 or 94.

But they're almost all going to be better from 37 than they are from 87, again assuming 37 isn't a bunker shot or somehow drastically short-sided (most greens are relatively open in the front).

Originally Posted by ctyankee

So tell me ... if closer is better why are the pros laying up longer distances with their wedges?

And you tell me: when do they do this? I see guys trying to drive short par fours (or get it as close as they can) and going for par fives in two even if they're likely to come up just short of the green because even they know it's better to lay up as close as you can.

The only times you really see pros "laying up to a yardage" specifically is when the pin is short-sided and they need spin to help stop the ball close to the hole or when there's trouble closer to the hole (water, bunkers, lousy thick rough, big slopes) that they don't want to mess with.

Again, the studies have shown that at every level you get the ball closer to the hole the closer you are to the hole.

You've made reality fit your perception. Perhaps you do it by discounting every time you see someone go for a green and come up 30 yards short as "he didn't get all of that." Perhaps you say "the risk was worth it" when you see someone pull driver on a par 4 they really only have 5% chance of hitting.

Look at the 10th at Riviera (I think it's the 10th). There's massive trouble around the green and people don't get up and down anywhere near as often as they should. Yet pros go for the green all the time because even with the trouble, and the severely sloped and small green, they know they're still better getting closer than having 85 yards or whatever they'd lay up to.

Originally Posted by ctyankee

Not in the slightest.  The context was: to just look at how well amateurs execute a shot (pitch to the green) without also understanding the risks taken to get to that point is completely worthless.  It's about as worthless as talking to someone that claims that most golfers are just about as good hitting a 4 iron as they are a 7 iron ... that kind of worthless.

I thought that's how you took that. Guess what? The stats bear out what I said. In your opinion, a golfer will have more success hitting a 7-iron and then a longer approach shot than hitting a 4-iron and a shorter approach shot.

The stats simply don't bear that out. We can't look at "average score from 250 yards" because that doesn't break it down to "people who lay up to 100 and people who lay up to 65." We can look at how well people hit each of their clubs, and their performance from 65 and 100 yards, though. Using some of the services to which I subscribe (I believe you can get some free ones from OOB or other sites, maybe?):

• The average amateur hits his 7-iron slightly better than his 4-iron (many of these are hybrids these days), absolutely. It's nowhere near as big a difference as you think. For example, if you're looking at GIR as a measure, the average 18-handicapper is only 6% (5.87) less likely to hit the green with a 4-iron than they are with a 7-iron. In other words, they can almost as easily shank, thin, fat, or mis-aim a 7-iron almost as easily as their 4-iron.
• The 18 handicapper is going to take 0.39 strokes more to get in the hole from 100 yards over 65 yards (I'm taking 250-150 = 100 for the 7-iron, and 250-185 = 65 for the 4-iron/hybrid).

In other words, 0.39 strokes trumps 5.87% "worse" performance. They're simply not going to save more than 0.39 strokes by being 6% more likely to be in the fairway. And some of their "worse" shots with a 4-iron are to miss the green short by fatting or thinning the ball, and at that point they might be at 100 yards like they would be with their 7-iron, so they lose nothing.

I was guessing based on my memory of these stats (I typically only have to look at some of the better player stats since they're the ones who will pay to help themselves save every last partial stroke) when I said this:

"Nope. But a thinned 4I will probably end up in as good a position as a regular 7I, maybe better. And it's not like the golfers who can't hit a 4I can hit their 7I all that well either."

It turns out I remembered pretty well. They can't hit their 7I appreciably better than their 4I, so the proximity numbers are still important.

Oh, and the gap widens when you consider even longer shots, like getting greenside with a 3W from 235 versus laying up to 90 yards with a 7-iron. The average amateur - again, assuming no horrible greenside issues like water or super thick rough or really deep bunkers (i.e. average golf course conditions) is even BETTER off hitting the 3W.

There are no doubt exceptions. There may be an average golfer who is better than his peers from 100 yards, or who really, REALLY hates his 3W off the fairway. But, overall, the stats continue to bear out the simple truth that it's better to get closer to the green at every level of the game.

---

Consider these numbers for the current year as of today from the PGA Tour:

50-125 yards: 18'10"

50-125 yards (rgh): 26'5"

100-125 yards: 20'9"

100-125 yards (rgh): 28'11"

75-100 yards: 17'5"

75-100 yards (rgh): 23'0"

50-75 yards: 15'2"

50-75 yards (rgh): 21'8"

30+ yards: 12'5"

20-30 yards: 9'1"

10-20 yards: 6'9"

< 10 yards: 3'5"

What this demonstrates is that even if you lay up in the rough at 66 yards, the median player on the PGA Tour is going to hit the ball less than a foot difference than if he's in the fairway at 107 yards (slight advantage to laying up farther back), but if you're in the fairway with that extra 41 yards, you're going to be over five feet closer to the hole (big advantage to getting closer to the green).

And these are guys that practice their distance control from those longer yardages. The average amateur sees a bigger gap the closer they get to the green with even better results.

---

Look, CT, think what you want. I don't really care. However, you don't really get to be insulting, or if you want to be, please at least know it effectively demonstrates that you're basically plugging your ears and humming. I used to advocate practicing your yardages, knowing them, taping them to your shafts as I do, laying up to them, etc. I still advocate all of those things except the last. Now, unless there's massive trouble around the green, I lay up as close as I can, and if that's half of a 1/4 shot distance with my 54° wedge, well, I figure out what to do from there.

The stats can help you. But you've gotta remove your fingers from your ears and stop humming first.

[ctyankee]

The whole going for a par-4 from the tee is nothing but an effective smoke-screen for the issue at hand.  Pro's do it because the reward (sometimes) far exceeds the risk.  Good chance for an eagle or maybe getting on ESPN.  Miss the green but get in the green-side bunker?  Up and down and you've still got your birdie.  I do the same at my course.

But that has nothing to do with the discussion.  They drive for the green because they have a legitimate chance of making the green or leaving themselves a chip shot remaining.  Apples and bananas to the discussion, which is that it is better to lay up to the distance you're 'money' at versus forcing a ball close just to be close to leave some 'touch' shot at best and more likely to be in the rough, or behind some tree or other bad stuff.

Stats are meaningless unless you can develop a strategy around them.  Give me approach shot stats that tell you that being close is better than being farther away is like telling me that being closer to the hole on a putt is better than being farther away on a putt.  Big whoop and completely meaningless to developing an effective approach.  I'll say it again, giving out stats WITHOUT the stats of the shot before it is meaningless in a discussion of how to plan out a multiple shot strategy.  And with the stats you've provided to this point, lost in those stats are what it took to get to the point those shots were executed.  C'est la difference.

But candidly, not all of this is bad.  I love playing against guys that chunk the short shot out of the rough and wonder why that happened or do a decel on that 35 yard 'touch shot' under pressure of competition and wonder why it doesn't happen when it doesn't matter.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by ctyankee

The whole going for a par-4 from the tee is nothing but an effective smoke-screen for the issue at hand. Pro's do it because the reward (sometimes) far exceeds the risk.  Good chance for an eagle or maybe getting on ESPN. Miss the green but get in the green-side bunker? Up and down and you've still got your birdie. I do the same at my course.

It's not a smoke screen. It's just laying up with a hybrid off the tee instead of hitting driver, very similar to 7I or 4I.

Originally Posted by ctyankee

But that has nothing to do with the discussion.  They drive for the green because they have a legitimate chance of making the green or leaving themselves a chip shot remaining.  Apples and bananas to the discussion, which is that it is better to lay up to the distance you're 'money' at versus forcing a ball close just to be close to leave some 'touch' shot at best and more likely to be in the rough, or behind some tree or other bad stuff.

What you seem to fail to grasp is that:

1. Even pros aren't "money" at any distance. Look at the stats. As I said, if they HAVE to lay up in a certain 20-yard-wide area, they'll pick a distance in that range they prefer, but they - like every other golfer out there - are better the closer they get to the green.
2. I've specifically ruled out laying up into a "bad" area with water, sand, trees, etc.

You can call it a "touch" shot all you want, but the simple facts are, again: the closer you are to the green the closer you'll leave your ball to the hole on your next shot.

Originally Posted by ctyankee

Stats are meaningless unless you can develop a strategy around them. Give me approach shot stats that tell you that being close is better than being farther away is like telling me that being closer to the hole on a putt is better than being farther away on a putt. Big whoop and completely meaningless to developing an effective approach. I'll say it again, giving out stats WITHOUT the stats of the shot before it is meaningless in a discussion of how to plan out a multiple shot strategy.  And with the stats you've provided to this point, lost in those stats are what it took to get to the point those shots were executed. C'est la difference.

Uhm, no.

I'd spend the time pointing out why, but I think others here can do that for themselves, and my kid's due home soon and I'm going to go pick up her glasses with her. And, perhaps most of all, I don't really care if you don't use stats and understanding them to your benefit. I've used them to mine, and to help the people I coach or instruct.

Originally Posted by ctyankee

But candidly, not all of this is bad.  I love playing against guys that chunk the short shot out of the rough and wonder why that happened or do a decel on that 35 yard 'touch shot' under pressure of competition and wonder why it doesn't happen when it doesn't matter.

Those same guys shank, thin, chunk, or pull their wedge from 110 yards pretty darn often too.