To Golfers Who Score in the 70s - What's Your Story?

[Groucho Valentine]

22 hours ago, NM Golf said:

Hey @iacas I think I just went back to 2005!

Believe what you want, but don't pass off what you believe (not supported at all by the data) as fact. You saying "That's how it is for me." IS NOT FACT. For all we know you can't break 100.

As I have said in some other threads I have always believed the importance of the long game far outweighed that of the short game. I have worked at a golf course for over 20 years, I see it all the time. The big difference between the 10-15 handicap and the scratch golfer is their long game. The biggest difference between me and my 5 handicap buddies is...THE LONG GAME. Many of them have very comparable games inside 100 yards to mine. 

The data supports Erik not you, until you can say something actually supported by some type of actual data, you should stay out of the conversation.  

You're white knighting, here. 

Its fact to me, because i know what i do and dont do. And thats all that really matters. iacas "data" is just as irrelevant than my opinion is. Confirmation bias can have you believe anything. 

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

You're white knighting, here. 

Its fact to me, because i know what i do and dont do. And thats all that really matters. iacas "data" is just as irrelevant than my opinion is. Confirmation bias can have you believe anything. 

No. That isn’t how large collections of data work.

The data may not apply to you (though it probably does more than you’ll seemingly ever acknowledge), but you’d be a rare exception in that case.

This isn’t a case of confirmation bias, nor can just mentioning various logical fallacies provide any more weight to your position.

[klineka]

I've only started breaking 80 this year, and there are a couple of specific things that have helped me the most.

1. For me, I saw an immediate decrease in scoring when I signed up for evolvr which was the first golf lessons I have ever had. Just a couple small tweaks with my grip and arm positioning has lead to much more consistent ball striking. I hit the ball far enough where I can get GIR on most courses, but the main issue that was holding me back was consistency. I've cut the number of topped shots and fat shots in half since starting with evolvr. Went from 5+ of those kind of shots per round to now just a couple. When I played with Erik and others at the central ohio outing, I had probably at least 10 of those shots. Now some rounds I'll only have 1-2 of those shots.

2. Aiming for the middle of the green whenever I am more than about 50 yards out. It has resulted in more GIR. Simple as that. some of my friends continue to just laser the pin and play that yardage, I typically laser the middle of the green and play around that yardage

3. Playing away from OB/hazards on tee shots instead of lining straight up down the middle and hoping it goes straight. Seems simple enough but actually takes a pretty significant amount of thought for me to do this and often I find myself falling back into my old habit of middle of the tee box, which has resulted in some OB the past couple rounds

[Groucho Valentine]

45 minutes ago, iacas said:

No. That isn’t how large collections of data work.

The data may not apply to you (though it probably does more than you’ll seemingly ever acknowledge), but you’d be a rare exception in that case.

This isn’t a case of confirmation bias, nor can just mentioning various logical fallacies provide any more weight to your position.

It doesn't apply to me. I was shooting in the low 80s-high 70s until i got better green side. My ball striking relatively stayed the same. I also know a few guys who are ace ball strikers but rarely break 75 because they cant get the ball in the hole. Ive shot 1 or 2 over while hitting the ball like crap. That never seems to happen the other way around. So to me, the data you have doesn't ring true. 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Groucho Valentine

[NM Golf]

2 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

You're white knighting, here. 

Its fact to me, because i know what i do and dont do. And thats all that really matters. iacas "data" is just as irrelevant than my opinion is. Confirmation bias can have you believe anything. 

White Knighting? No I am just agreeing with someone else with the same viewpoint. As I have said before I have been saying the importance of the long game outweighed that of the short game for years. I am even more empowered now that the data supports my position. You just rage on in the face of overwhelming proof that what you say is erroneous. You have quite the ego. 

I have little doubt that you actually think your short game is most important, and even less doubt that if we were able to take a look at it analytically the data would show you are wrong. Hey, in your defense people thought the world was flat for hundreds of years, there's hope for you yet. 

[Groucho Valentine]

13 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

White Knighting? No I am just agreeing with someone else with the same viewpoint. As I have said before I have been saying the importance of the long game outweighed that of the short game for years. I am even more empowered now that the data supports my position. You just rage on in the face of overwhelming proof that what you say is erroneous. You have quite the ego. 

I have little doubt that you actually think your short game is most important, and even less doubt that if we were able to take a look at it analytically the data would show you are wrong. Hey, in your defense people thought the world was flat for hundreds of years, there's hope for you yet. 

Because it is erroneous. What do i have to do to convince you? Visit the healing lounge and let me teach you. 

[NM Golf]

32 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Because it is erroneous. What do i have to do to convince you? Visit the healing lounge and let me teach you. 

I have no idea what that even means, perhaps you're changing the subject? My wife does that when she's wrong as well. Rage on man, rage on. Maybe the world is flat

[klineka]

2 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

So to me, the data you have doesn't ring true. 

 

24 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Because it is erroneous. 

So just because YOU, one single golfer, doesnt fit into the data that was gathered across hundreds, if not thousands of golfers, that means the data that was collected is wrong? Just stop.

Here are the top 8 players on the PGA tour this year in strokes gained around the green. Only 2 out of the top 8 are in the final 30 for the fedex cup.

 

Here are the top 8 players on the PGA tour this year in strokes gained off the tee. 6 out of the 8 are in the final 30 for the fedex cup, and one of the two players that didnt make the top 30 was battling injuries.

Please explain to me how this data is erroneous. I didnt gather this data, I didnt choose the participants. This clearly shows that the long game is more important than the short game.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

It doesn't apply to me.

Then fine, you're a special unicorn. Feel better?

2 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

I also know a few guys who are ace ball strikers but rarely break 75 because they can't get the ball in the hole,

I'd be willing to take that bet.

2 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Ive shot 1 or 2 over while hitting the ball like crap. That never seems to happen the other way around. So to me, the data you have doesn't ring true. 

I shoot 1 or 2 over and hit the ball "like crap" too. Thing is… your version and my version of "like crap" is not that bad. We still advance the ball. We still get on or near the green. We don't take a bunch of penalties off the tee. We don't put ourselves behind trees or in a bunch of fairway bunkers.

It's fine that you've been dead set against this from the start. There's a ton of data out there. You're wrong to say the data is wrong. The data is the data, and the conclusions are very well and widely supported at this point.

52 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

I have little doubt that you actually think your short game is most important, and even less doubt that if we were able to take a look at it analytically the data would show you are wrong. Hey, in your defense people thought the world was flat for hundreds of years, there's hope for you yet. 

@Groucho Valentine, which team wins in each of the two "games" proposed here:

Seriously… which, and by how many? On average. Say they play 100 rounds that way.

38 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Because it is erroneous.

It's not, no.

Here's the thing, @Groucho Valentine, maybe you are a special unicorn. Maybe.

But the data is the data, and it now encompasses millions of golfers, and hundreds of millions of golf shots. It says what it says, and awfully consistently.

But this debate's been going on for the past few years now. Actually, calling it a debate implies it's an opinion. I should say there have been holdouts or stubborn people for a few years now. But that's fine, just keep your head in the sand. Doesn't really bother me at all. It's annoying to have "but, I say this cuz that seems like what's right" thrown back as if it's a valid argument, but that's about all this amounts to - a minor annoyance. If you don't want the help, if you want to keep your head in the sand… go for it man. Won't change my life one iota.

[Groucho Valentine]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

Then fine, you're a special unicorn. Feel better?

I'd be willing to take that bet.

I shoot 1 or 2 over and hit the ball "like crap" too. Thing is… your version and my version of "like crap" is not that bad. We still advance the ball. We still get on or near the green. We don't take a bunch of penalties off the tee. We don't put ourselves behind trees or in a bunch of fairway bunkers.

It's fine that you've been dead set against this from the start. There's a ton of data out there. You're wrong to say the data is wrong. The data is the data, and the conclusions are very well and widely supported at this point.

@Groucho Valentine, which team wins in each of the two "games" proposed here:

Seriously… which, and by how many? On average. Say they play 100 rounds that way.

It's not, no.

Here's the thing, @Groucho Valentine, maybe you are a special unicorn. Maybe.

But the data is the data, and it now encompasses millions of golfers, and hundreds of millions of golf shots. It says what it says, and awfully consistently.

But this debate's been going on for the past few years now. Actually, calling it a debate implies it's an opinion. I should say there have been holdouts or stubborn people for a few years now. But that's fine, just keep your head in the sand. Doesn't really bother me at all. It's annoying to have "but, I say this cuz that seems like what's right" thrown back as if it's a valid argument, but that's about all this amounts to - a minor annoyance. If you don't want the help, if you want to keep your head in the sand… go for it man. Won't change my life one iota.

You're right. I am a unicorn. 

[phillyk]

I think I get where @Groucho Valentine is coming from.  I've had rounds where ball striking sucked and I shot well because of short game.  But I've had more rounds where ball striking is good, short game sucks and I still shoot better.

I don't know how this will ring, but here goes.  When you take a scratch or plus golfer and put him on a course rating course of 72 or whatever, and he shoots 1 or 2 under, he's going to have stats that look similar to that of the pros.  Why? Because he's shooting the average score of the pros, but on a significantly easier course.  Pros are making those stats on a course rating of 75 or more in tournament pressure and conditions, where the greens are usually hard and running.  I would assume that groucho plays on courses that are not set up even close, condition wise, to that of pro set ups.  To get those low scores, you are putting the ball close to the hole and making a few putts here and there.  So, yeah Groucho may have stats similar to pros, but take him to tougher courses with tougher set ups and I bet those stats won't ring true anymore.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, phillyk said:

I think I get where @Groucho Valentine is coming from.  I've had rounds where ball striking sucked and I shot well because of short game.

Again, your version, my version, and @Groucho Valentine's version of "sucked" is relative to our standards, not the standards of a 12-handicapper or something.

9 minutes ago, phillyk said:

I don't know how this will ring, but here goes. When you take a scratch or plus golfer and put him on a course rating course of 72 or whatever, and he shoots 1 or 2 under, he's going to have stats that look similar to that of the pros.  Why? Because he's shooting the average score of the pros, but on a significantly easier course.  Pros are making those stats on a course rating of 75 or more in tournament pressure and conditions, where the greens are usually hard and running.  I would assume that groucho plays on courses that are not set up even close, condition wise, to that of pro set ups.  To get those low scores, you are putting the ball close to the hole and making a few putts here and there.  So, yeah Groucho may have stats similar to pros, but take him to tougher courses with tougher set ups and I bet those stats won't ring true anymore.

Thing is, he doesn't have any real stats. He's not shared any that I remember. He just says "I was a good ball striker but I shot in the 80s, then when I worked on my short game I was good." (Paraphrased.) Those aren't stats. I don't know what "a good ball striker" is in his mind. He says his ball striking remained the same, but again… who knows? Maybe the solidness was the same, but directionally or distance control improved. I don't know. And I suspect he doesn't really know either.

That's the stupid thing about arguing against someone's "experiences." (Odd that such a person would cite "confirmation bias" when he's talking to people with data and he has only his recollections.) He can constantly shift the goalposts, because we don't know where they are to begin with. We've got nothing to argue against, except his memory, and who knows how accurate that is?

And I don't mean he's lying. I mean, just like the guy who is pissed at himself for missing the eight-footer for par, but blames his short game and putting for letting him down, when really to get to where he had an eight-footer for par after blasting the ball into a bunch of trees, playing a half-hearted punch-out to 50 yards short of the green took a pretty darn good short game… and the blame belongs on the full swing shots, he can be mislead by his own memories into thinking "the short game and putting cost me there. I could have had a par." Sorry. That was a long sentence.

This is really getting off topic. The topic is not the rainbow unicorn @Groucho Valentine believes himself to be (and maybe he is).

The topic is most golfers who shoot in the 70s.

Golfers who shoot in the 70s do everything better than someone who shoots in the 80s. But their largest gains are almost always with the full swing. An 80s golfer putts almost as well as a 70s golfer, and ditto for the short game. They're rarely that close in ballstriking.

[klineka]

1 hour ago, Groucho Valentine said:

You're right. I am a unicorn. 

Any thoughts on the data I posted from the PGA tour this season? 

Can you please provide some data or statistically relevant pieces of information to back up your statement/claims?

You also didn't answer Erik's question where he linked to the other thread about the switcheroo. Can you please answer his question?

Unicorn or not you should still be able to answer the questions that are being asked of you and provide statistics to back up your claims. 

Statements without facts are just opinions.

Edited September 21, 2017 by klineka

[iacas]

@klineka, let’s just move on. He’s special and won’t be convinced.

[Groucho Valentine]

15 minutes ago, klineka said:

Any thoughts on the data I posted from the PGA tour this season? 

Can you please provide some data or statistically relevant pieces of information to back up your statement/claims?

You also didn't answer Erik's question where he linked to the other thread about the switcheroo. Can you please answer his question?

Unicorn or not you should still be able to answer the questions that are being asked of you and provide statistics to back up your claims. 

Statements without facts are just opinions.

No. I don't owe you or anyone else and explanation. About anything. Whatsoever. 

Now I'm not answering. You're a serf not worthy of my wisdom. 

Just now, iacas said:

@klineka, let’s just move on. He’s special and won’t be convinced.

Thats right. 

[NM Golf]

2 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

No. I don't owe you or anyone else and explanation. About anything. Whatsoever. 

Now I'm not answering. You're a serf not worthy of my wisdom. 

Thats right. 

The ego of this guy, wow. Spoken just like someone who has nothing to back up their opinion. I'm done

[DaveP043]

16 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

The ego of this guy, wow. Spoken just like someone who has nothing to back up their opinion. I'm done

Just don't bet against him.  

[jsgolfer]

16 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

No. I don't owe you or anyone else and explanation. About anything. Whatsoever. 

Now I'm not answering. You're a serf not worthy of my wisdom. 

Thats right. 

 

18 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Because it is erroneous. What do i have to do to convince you? Visit the healing lounge and let me teach you. 

After this thread, maybe the Healing Lounge should close?