"Lowest Score Wins" by Barzeski and Wedzik

[saevel25]

2 hours ago, stealthhwk said:

How beneficial would lsw be for a guy like me with little to no practice time? And how many strokes do yall think it might save me seeing as how u guys have read it?

Very beneficial. A good third of the book is just on game planning. That alone can save you a handful of strokes a round. 

It's a fantastic book you'll be referencing for years. A very solid investment even if your have limited practice time. 

 

[allenc]

2 hours ago, stealthhwk said:

How beneficial would lsw be for a guy like me with little to no practice time? And how many strokes do yall think it might save me seeing as how u guys have read it?

 

28 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Very beneficial. A good third of the book is just on game planning. That alone can save you a handful of strokes a round. 

It's a fantastic book you'll be referencing for years. A very solid investment even if your have limited practice time. 

 

I agree it's a good book if you enjoy reading about golf.  I enjoyed it very much.  I disagree that it will save you many or any strokes if you literally have no practice time and already are an avid sandtrap reader.

The decision map section that @saevel25 is referencing will take several hours of work, at home and on the field, per course you play.  The same goes for wedge stuff and tournament prep.  If you have a home course that you know like the back of your hand it will be a bit easier.

If you've never been exposed to any of this stuff and currently play like your ball will fly dead straight every time then you might save a few strokes with no work.  Again, as a sandtrap reader that seems unlikely to be the case.

You already know what seperation value is even though you might not know the term.  And since you don't practice, it doesn't really matter.

Still, why not just buy it and read it rather than agonize over it.  It will surely be one of the cheapest golf expenses you make.

[stealthhwk]

All good thoughts!! Thanks. Ill probably go ahead and order a copy. Thanks to all

[iacas]

4 hours ago, allenc said:

The decision map section that @saevel25 is referencing will take several hours of work, at home and on the field, per course you play.  The same goes for wedge stuff and tournament prep.  If you have a home course that you know like the back of your hand it will be a bit easier.

I disagree a bit here. Just understanding and employing "The Rule" and the GIR is King stuff (particularly the stuff in #DeadCenter) is enough to take strokes off the games of many players.

[allenc]

17 hours ago, iacas said:

I disagree a bit here. Just understanding and employing "The Rule" and the GIR is King stuff (particularly the stuff in #DeadCenter) is enough to take strokes off the games of many players.

Ok, I reread #DeadCenter and the following two chapters and retract part of my above post.  The last three (short) chapters alone could easily take a stroke off most players' games with no work other than remembering them.

I also flipped through and see there is some other target related stuff that many people may not have considered and don't really require precise shot zones and decision maps.  And there are enough little tid bits in there that most of us won't have heard them all before.

To me though, the most memorable and interesting stuff does require a decent amount of work and no doubt would lead to the largest gain if you put in that work.  I'm also always hesitant to agree that a simple gimmick like a special wedge, swing thought, or even book will just magically shave strokes off your game without any improvement in skill.

[freshmanUTA]

Hey I've got a question about the consistency part. In the book ou explain that people have the same swing whether they hit it perfectly drawn and 500 yards or it doesn't pass the ladies tees.

 

I went ent to get fit for shafts and the club fitter noticed that my face angle was changing a lot. My ball strikes were very consistently close to center, but what produced bad shots was the face angle. 

Could this be because I tend to use my abs and upper body to swing by turning my upper body? 

Kinda like tigers follow through when he hits a big draw when he rips his body to the left and like leans that way as well.

 

And part 2 of the question which is more of a statement is, when I slow down my swing and try to swing easily I only swing around 85-90 mph and my shots are much much better and my body doesn't seem to turn left like tigers does. The only problem with this is that when I swing slower with better rythm I'm losing over 15 yards of distance. 

 

I want to know what I can do to help have a more consistently good face angle at impact.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, freshmanUTA said:

I went ent to get fit for shafts and the club fitter noticed that my face angle was changing a lot. My ball strikes were very consistently close to center, but what produced bad shots was the face angle. 

Could this be because I tend to use my abs and upper body to swing by turning my upper body? 

Tough to say. I just saw a regular speed video or two from FO in your Member Swing thread. I don't know how much your face angle changes, I don't know whether it could actually be where you hit the ball on the face, i don't know what your grip is like, etc.

Often players who stall out their pivot have trouble with Key #5, so that could play a role, too.

Not really an LSW type question, though.

1 hour ago, freshmanUTA said:

And part 2 of the question which is more of a statement is, when I slow down my swing and try to swing easily I only swing around 85-90 mph and my shots are much much better and my body doesn't seem to turn left like tigers does. The only problem with this is that when I swing slower with better rythm I'm losing over 15 yards of distance. 

I want to know what I can do to help have a more consistently good face angle at impact.

I'd post some good slow-mo video in your Member Swing thread and/or consider signing up for evolvr.com.

[freshmanUTA]

31 minutes ago, iacas said:

Tough to say. I just saw a regular speed video or two from FO in your Member Swing thread. I don't know how much your face angle changes, I don't know whether it could actually be where you hit the ball on the face, i don't know what your grip is like, etc.

Often players who stall out their pivot have trouble with Key #5, so that could play a role, too.

Not really an LSW type question, though.

I'd post some good slow-mo video in your Member Swing thread and/or consider signing up for evolvr.com.

My apologies, just thought of it while I was reading LSW for the third time haha.

The video I have their is before I started to work on not sliding backwards and I think I foxed it for the most part. I'll be in the hitting zone soon because hitting balls is addictive.

 

As for the evolvr, I think I might buy a subscription for a few months. Thanks for showing me that!

[WUTiger]

I've started reading LSW.

As soon as pages 6 and 7, I noticed how the themes touched on a March 2016 article: Grip It and Rip It. Author Christopher Smith talks how great ball strikers often struggle around the green, while great short game players sometimes struggle with full shots. Smith suggests that the full swing vs. the chip or pitch, are "fundamentally opposite motions, yet many of us approach them as the same." (p. 70)

LSW discusses how the book's golf instruction will be divided into:

• Full swing motion
• Short game motion

As I advance through LSW, it will be interesting to see how Smith's article compares to it.

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, WUTiger said:

I've started reading LSW.

As soon as pages 6 and 7, I noticed how the themes touched on a March 2016 article: Grip It and Rip It. Author Christopher Smith talks how great ball strikers often struggle around the green, while great short game players sometimes struggle with full shots. Smith suggests that the full swing vs. the chip or pitch, are "fundamentally opposite motions, yet many of us approach them as the same." (p. 70)

I think that is a bunch of BS. If you actually look at ball striking and scrambling. There is no correlation showing that ball strikers have poor short games. 

 

[WUTiger]

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I think that is a bunch of BS. If you actually look at ball striking and scrambling. There is no correlation showing that ball strikers have poor short games.

I think it's interesting, the comparison of the full swing and the chip-pitch motions.

A person who is a good ball-striker will need to work less on their short game, than someone who faces a dozen NGIs (near greens in regulation) per round. I think it has to do more with what you need to do to score well, rather than that most good ball-strikers have poor short games.

Jack Nicklaus once said his chipping was sometimes problematic, because he didn't need to do it much when he was playing well.

I know instances of chronic good ball-striker / poor short-gamer golfers. Such golfers never made it to the pro tour because of short-game problems. Years ago (like in the 1970s) I knew a young pro who had 16 GIR in the first round of sectional U.S. Open qualifying. But, he had 37 putts for the 18. Over the season, he frequently had rounds with high GIR but more than 36 putts. Again, these people are unusual cases, but they do exist.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, WUTiger said:

I think it's interesting, the comparison of the full swing and the chip-pitch motions.

I don't, and I don't think it's fair to set up LSW - which barely touches on technique except to provide a cursory glance - based on something that you already seem to have accepted as true but which I'd disagree is not true.

They're different motions, but good golfers are better at both than worse golfers. Tiger Woods was awfully good at both.

9 minutes ago, WUTiger said:

Jack Nicklaus once said his chipping was sometimes problematic, because he didn't need to do it much when he was playing well.

He still had a better short game than almost everyone else in the world. And it still doesn't have much to do with LSW.

6 minutes ago, WUTiger said:

I know instances of chronic good ball-striker / poor short-gamer golfers. Such golfers never made it to the pro tour because of short-game problems. Years ago (like in the 1970s) I knew a young pro who had 16 GIR in the first round of sectional U.S. Open qualifying. But, he had 37 putts for the 18. Over the season, he frequently had rounds with high GIR but more than 36 putts. Again, these people are unusual cases, but they do exist.

I disagree. Not that they don't exist, but they're aberrations.

And if putting or the short game was all that was holding them back, they should have fixed it. Putting and the short game are relatively easy skills. Even Boo Weekley can stick around the PGA Tour and even win now and then.

John, stick to reading the book for what it is, not based on things you've previously accepted or things you've set up as comparisons.

[nevets88]

Here's the piece

Rip it and Chip it

Quote

Consider this: Golfers with great long games tend to be weaker around the greens, and those with terrific short games often struggle with ball-striking. Why? B

I think he's referring to amateurs, not PGA Tour players, but hard to tell from context, but that's how I read it.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/christopher-smith-rip-it-and-chip-it

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Here's the piece

Rip it and Chip it

I think he's referring to amateurs, not PGA Tour players, but hard to tell from context, but that's how I read it.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/christopher-smith-rip-it-and-chip-it

I think he's wrong. 

[saevel25]

http://www.golfwrx.com/346466/statistics-on-how-short-hitters-can-conquer-par-5s/

Interesting article trying to assess what to do on par 5's. One key paragraph that I think sums it up quite nice is, 

Quote

This was a bit more surprising for the most part, as he Overachievers did not putt significantly better than the Underachievers. This indicates that getting the ball close to the green in the first two shots is more important than actual putting performance on the green for Tour players.

The fact that proximity to the hole for your first putt improves the closer you get to the green. It's bets to advance the ball as a far as possible baring things like bunkers, water hazards, ect..  
 

[Big Lex]

Any update on a kindle version?

[mvmac]

 

Any update on a kindle version?

[Big Lex]

10 hours ago, mvmac said:

I do own a hard copy. Would be great to have available on devices....as has been said.