"Lowest Score Wins" by Barzeski and Wedzik

[nevets88]

I'm almost done with the book - I was expecting it to be something like "Every Shot Counts: Applications" but it's more than that. It's more of a holistic approach to getting better at golf than just applying stats although that's a big part of it.

There are books out there that aggregate tips from everywhere and everyone and the tips are separated into sections but they're all different ideas coming from different sources, there's no central organizing philosophy. LSW has one, a sort of modern, tech/data/practical/results driven based approach.

This is an awesome book especially for someone who's just getting into golf and wants to get serious - it has a roadmap for everything and is a great primer. Compared to going out into the internet and spending countless hours and hours figuring out which sources are legitimate and just figuring things out LSW much of it all for you, it's a tremendous timesaver.

I was surprised by the content on technique at the beginning of the book and skipped straight to the shot zone and decision mapping at the end, but even though I've worked with Erik and have been on TST for awhile, there were new things I picked up on the technique side of things.

I'm still letting the decision mapping ideas sink in so I'll comment on that in another post. What intrigued me most was the Separation Value rankings and the practicing plans. Which shots were most important I knew a little from Broadie's work, but LSW distills it down simply. I also used a stat similar to nGIR before reading LSW, I called it close enough to the green in regulation - I always thought it was important. Another one I "made" myself up was up-and across and down. Basically an up and down + 1. LSW confirmed again that this was important.

I'd say 1/3 to 1/2 of this book is a distillation of what I've been reading and learning from TST and lessons from Golf Evolution instructional wise - it took me years to absorb that info. Some schmuck just getting into golf wanting to get serious will pickup this book and get up to speed to where I am in a day potentially. Okay, maybe not a day, but way, way faster than I did. That's huge, a big jump over a steep learning curve.

Interspersed throughout the book are common "truisms" that are dispelled - about trees, green reading, pro quotes, putting, etc... Plus I love that there are so many stats/numbers/data used to back up ideas. Part of the blurb on the book should read - and how we'll dispel all those silly "nuggets of wisdom" going around.

If I had some nitpicks to pick, I'd wish for an index. It's a short, but dense book though so you don't have to flip that much looking for something. For practicing, it would love for a section detailing how to practice using video/mirrors. Also the parts where wind is talked about. Not sure what a 5% wind is - I guess 5% wind into is 5 yards off your 100yd club for example. Why 5% and not 5mph?  And maybe a little more detail about where to get and how to use online weather forecast wind direction. Perhaps talk about online lessons in the instructor section? Another thing is one of the diagrams referred to is not on the member site yet - I think it was something about Aoa.

I see two demographics this book especially satisfies - for someone looking to build a roadmap when getting serious about golf and for someone wanting more from Every Shot Counts - how to use stats without having to know and read about regression analysis to know what to practice and how plot your way around a course.

And like the blurb or something I read somewhere said - there is no book on the market like this - that's true.

[JonMA1]

This book is great for high handicappers as well. There are so many good things in here to improve your game immediately and in the long-term.

One paragraph that really hit home for me is on page 153. It talks about how it's bad strategy to approach a hole based on that "great shot" you hit once that was actually an outlier. "He should work to remove it via practice, but GamePlanning is about using the game you have". Looking back, quite often I would play an entire round based on shots I thought I was capable of making instead of playing my average shot - including which club I'd pull out of the bag and where I would aim.

Lowest Score Wins is a very well-written book. It's very easy to comprehend what the authors are trying to get across. The ideas are logically layed out so that they tie into one another throughout the book. The illustrations are simple yet they effectively support the text and vice versa. At no point in reading this did I have to re-read a paragraph or look at an illustration and wonder what was meant. The decision mapping section has already improved the few rounds I've played since reading the book.

I would highly recommend buying this book and getting as much out of it as you can to improve your game.

[mknoebel]

I got my book on Monday, but haven't had a lot of time this week to read it until now.  I keep telling myself, just one more chapter... And I keep on going.  As I am reading I am finding myself nodding my head a lot:  I do that... I don't do that but should... Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense...   But most of all I want to keep turning the pages so I can get finished and pass it on to my daughter.  This is good stuff!

[Shindig]

Finally got a chance to read it, and immediately went and re-read some chapters. Now I'm worried I'll have too much good information in my head for the tournament on Sunday. ;-) I'm especially happy to have the chapter on how to practice -- about time I learned how to do that. Great book, Erik and David.

[boogielicious]

Finished it yesterday.  It is an excellent approach to a golf book especially the last section on Building Your Game Plan .  Most golf books give instruction on how to physically improve your mechanics and technique and even some strategy, but from a professional skill level.  LSW does this to some degree, but adds how to play with what you have currently.  This has tremendous value.

I will also add that I really like the humor interspersed in the book.  It creates breaks while reading that let the reader relax for a moment to let the content sink in a bit.  I now know why I will not practice long bunker shots and what I will do instead (page 102).

Thanks Erik @iacas and Dave (I can never remember his user name) for letting us be part of starting this book for you.

Now I am going to go back and read it again adding post-it flags for quick access!

[CarlSpackler]

Still reading through it. Just finished the Short Game Practice section. I REALLY like the suggestion for home practice of long bunker shots.

[lyeager1981]

Finished it yesterday, very enjoyable and thought provoking. Loved section 3, while the theory behind the ideas in section 3 that most people inherently do already to some degree, the execution plan map is very strong and something I'm going to commit to doing from now on.

[saevel25]

Finished it yesterday, very enjoyable and thought provoking. Loved section 3, while the theory behind the ideas in section 3 that most people inherently do already to some degree, the execution plan map is very strong and something I'm going to commit to doing from now on.

Not sure I agree with that. I don't think people give enough clearance to their own abilities and end up more times than not in trouble. I also think a lot of golfers tend to aim at the pin no matter what.

[lyeager1981]

Not sure I agree with that. I don't think people give enough clearance to their own abilities and end up more times than not in trouble. I also think a lot of golfers tend to aim at the pin no matter what.

To be a bit more clear, I would describe section 3 as an scientific version of the age old risk/reward strategy that most golfers are familiar with and probably already using parts of this process today, albeit incorrectly and certainly not in a scientific manner.

As example an example, played with my brother last week and on a fairly long up hill par 4 (~400 or so, slight dog leg right), fairway bunker on the right corner (reachable with a 3w and just over that the beginnings of the lake, reachable with the driver), no tree trouble anywhere on the hole, or water off the tee, with a pond short and right of the green that essentially goes all the way behind the green as well.  He elected to hit a hybrid off the tee to the left side of the fairway which left him a mid-long iron into a difficult 2nd shot. His rationale was that was that he wanted to make sure that he had a fairway shot into the green and avoided the fairway bunker. I hit my driver up the left side more or less aiming at the rough or the very left edge of the fairway, I ended up about 3 yards into the rough which is considered light, leaving an easy gap wedge from the desired angle to the green and thus reducing the margin of error on the approach shot. Since my brother was 170 or so out in the middle, he now had trouble short (water), right (water), long (water) and left (two greenside bunkers). The only miss that he could really make was left and short which would put him on the fairway run up, but also I place that I wouldnt expect him to hit to given his ball flight.

To make a long story short, we both ended up making pars as he put his approach right in the middle of the green, but that is an anomally in this case, my strategy would clear have held up over the long term. Next time we play the hole I expect him to hit that same hybrid into the fairway as his feedback from his previous experience doing so was rewarded.

My point being that he understood the trouble that was in front of him, but looked at it from a total perspective, while in reality, the trouble was mostly on the approach shot and only severe trouble if you were too conservative on the tee shot. In his mind, he was playing smart and I think that most people similarily equate the smart shot with the conservative/safe shot.  I know that I've been there as well. Section 3 changes the definition of "smart" to strategic instead of safe.

[iacas]

To be a bit more clear, I would describe section 3 as an scientific version of the age old risk/reward strategy that most golfers are familiar with and probably already using parts of this process today, albeit incorrectly and certainly not in a scientific manner.

I can't really respond much to that statement because it's ambiguous enough and doesn't really say much. Do some golfers have a strategy? Sure. Many do not.

Of the golfers who have a strategy, do they line up with what @david_wedzik and myself preach (largely "The Rule" and the shading)? No. Too many people lay up too frequently (and when they do lay up, often too aggressively), and too many people then lay up too frequently when they are talking about "go-for-it" type situations.

So no, it's not a "scientific manner" at all, and more often than not, it's not really in any manner or not, except the whims of the player on that particular day or something…

To make a long story short, we both ended up making pars as he put his approach right in the middle of the green, but that is an anomally in this case, my strategy would clear have held up over the long term. Next time we play the hole I expect him to hit that same hybrid into the fairway as his feedback from his previous experience doing so was rewarded.

I agree with all of that, and think that you've provided a fine example.

[david_wedzik]

To be a bit more clear, I would describe section 3 as an scientific version of the age old risk/reward strategy that most golfers are familiar with

To follow up on Erik's thoughts I'll just say I'm not surprised by this comment. I think a fair percentage of people who read the section may feel that way. We discussed these types of comments being made, in fact, while writing the book.

However, I believe that it's far more perception than reality as it seems, after reading, like this is the common sense way to look at things. I actually like to hear this type of comment as I think it adds great credibility to the concepts. The GamePlanning section is definitely not typical risk/reward strategy and since this thread is for people who've read the book I don't need to hit on all of those details. Thanks for the thoughts and I, too, thought the Par 4 example you gave was a very good one.

[rehmwa]

changes the definition of "smart" to strategic instead of safe.

I am absolutely thrilled with this specific comment in so many ways.

[iacas]

I am absolutely thrilled with this specific comment in so many ways.

Seconded.

[lyeager1981]

I can't really respond much to that statement because it's ambiguous enough and doesn't really say much. Do some golfers have a strategy? Sure. Many do not.

Of the golfers who have a strategy, do they line up with what @david_wedzik and myself preach (largely "The Rule" and the shading)? No. Too many people lay up too frequently (and when they do lay up, often too aggressively), and too many people then lay up too frequently when they are talking about "go-for-it" type situations.

So no, it's not a "scientific manner" at all, and more often than not, it's not really in any manner or not, except the whims of the player on that particular day or something…

I agree with all of that, and think that you've provided a fine example.

Let me subsitutue scientific with systematic.

What I was getting at is that a lot players have always known that there is risk/reward and tell themselves are playing to it, but in reality they but they haven't ever been able to quanitfy it or have any idea of how to manipulate the odds into their favor with strategic decision making. I think the gameplan lessons in the book (or whatever you'd prefer they be called) do a fantastic job of providing a structured framework of how to define risk, evaluate risk and then how to reduce it or even play to it. Ego gets in the way a lot too, something I've always struggled with and am working to curb.

I did buy an extra book, but I almost don't want to give it to my brother as I'm afraid he might start playing better. Lastly, just wanted to say that I thouroughly enjoyed the book and can already think of many specific holes and situations that I will be playing very differently from now on.

[iacas]

What I was getting at is that a lot players have always known that there is risk/reward and tell themselves are playing to it, but in reality they but they haven't ever been able to quanitfy it or have any idea of how to manipulate the odds into their favor with strategic decision making.

I agree with that.

Thank you.

[boogielicious]

Let me subsitutue scientific with systematic.

What I was getting at is that a lot players have always known that there is risk/reward and tell themselves are playing to it, but in reality they but they haven't ever been able to quanitfy it or have any idea of how to manipulate the odds into their favor with strategic decision making. I think the gameplan lessons in the book (or whatever you'd prefer they be called) do a fantastic job of providing a structured framework of how to define risk, evaluate risk and then how to reduce it or even play to it. Ego gets in the way a lot too, something I've always struggled with and am working to curb.

I did buy an extra book, but I almost don't want to give it to my brother as I'm afraid he might start playing better. Lastly, just wanted to say that I thouroughly enjoyed the book and can already think of many specific holes and situations that I will be playing very differently from now on

Most players I know who employ risk reward always use their best shot as the expected shot.  Most times they fail but always justify it with "well at least I went for it."  I was more conservative in the past and frankly planned on my worst shot, which is also the wrong approach.  What separates LSW from other strategy books is the creation of your own shot zone and applying that to your gameplan.

I agree with your last paragraph.  I stated a page or two back that I got a signed copy for a close friend.  I will give it to him, but I hope he doesn't get better.

[Golfingdad]

Another question about the shot zones: Should the shot zones for tee balls be a lot longer ... Such that they start where the ball first touches the ground? Otherwise, might we have guys plopping their well diagrammed shot zones just beyond some trouble while forgetting to account for their carry distance to clear such trouble?

[saevel25]

Another question about the shot zones: Should the shot zones for tee balls be a lot longer ... Such that they start where the ball first touches the ground?

Otherwise, might we have guys plopping their well diagrammed shot zones just beyond some trouble while forgetting to account for their carry distance to clear such trouble?

Well since shot zones are to be measured as where the ball stops, then I presume it takes into account the final distance. Though I get your point, I would be aware of carry distance and roll out. That is something I think can't be measured though because conditions changed, but I would try to make the shot zone for tee shots be the carry distance. From there it is a best guess how far the ball might run out. If your gut is saying, "The fairways are running fast", then maybe you don't hit driver because it might run into a hazard or bunker.