"Lowest Score Wins" by Barzeski and Wedzik

[RussUK]

Is or will the book be availabe in the UK?

[Huddo]

You can get the book on eBay in the UK. The seller is jezzard1 and they are an official seller of the book, it's who I got mine from.

[iacas]

You can get the book on eBay in the UK. The seller is jezzard1 and they are an official seller of the book, it's who I got mine from.

Yes, and http://lowestscorewins.com/buy has always had the international purchase option, too.

[AwwNuts]

Received my copy a few weeks ago and I'm already on my second time through. I found it to be an easy read overall but with a lot of value information. I was able to start applying the concepts on my next round without overwhelming myself with a thousand different thoughts. Really looking forward to nailing down my shot zones over the next few weeks and watching that handicap drop!

[iacas]

Received my copy a few weeks ago and I'm already on my second time through. I found it to be an easy read overall but with a lot of value information. I was able to start applying the concepts on my next round without overwhelming myself with a thousand different thoughts. Really looking forward to nailing down my shot zones over the next few weeks and watching that handicap drop!

Thanks, I'm looking forward to it too! Keep us updated, start a "My Swing" thread if you're able to, and check out some of the threads on this site.

Thanks!

[pecos24]

Well I finally have my book ordered...now I have a question, one I probably should have asked before ordering the book...

I have read a lot of references about shot zone mapping and using tools like Trackman and Flightscope to assist in this mapping.  I am relatively sure I don't have access to either of these tools in my area.

I am wondering is it reasonable to go to the range to create these maps and take into consideration that the range balls are flying 5-10% less than a normal ball?

[808hacker]

I went to the range, but it was pretty difficult to map everything out accurately. The trackman can save a lot of time, but I'm not sure how accurate the trackman is for carry distance etc... either. I would think if you could go out on the range and laser back to the bag that would be best, but what about shot dispersion? Pretty difficult in any case.

[iacas]

I am wondering is it reasonable to go to the range to create these maps and take into consideration that the range balls are flying 5-10% less than a normal ball?

It is perfectly reasonable to do that.

First, if your range balls actually fly shorter, just consider the left/right dispersion and be honest with yourself about the real distances you hit your clubs with regular golf balls. You can build Shot Zones pretty accurately that way.

I went to the range, but it was pretty difficult to map everything out accurately. The trackman can save a lot of time, but I'm not sure how accurate the trackman is for carry distance etc... either. I would think if you could go out on the range and laser back to the bag that would be best, but what about shot dispersion? Pretty difficult in any case.

They're incredibly accurate with measuring carry distance.

[Mac62]

Just got my copy of LSW this afternoon, read it cover to cover this evening.  A lot of great information, common myths debunked (some of which are pretty mind-blowing, but well backed up by statistics) and food for thought.  I'm playing in the morning and while I haven't been able to map my shot zones yet, I'm going to put the game planning principles to use as best I can given what I currently know about my shot tendencies.  I'll definitely be re-reading the book over and over until everything sinks in!

[JonMA1]

I loaned my copy to the new General Manager/PGA Teaching Pro at the local club.

Just by talking with him for a few minutes, he seems to be pretty conventional - especially regarding practice time (short game more important than full swing). I'm curious to hear what he thinks about the book. From my experience with human nature, I'd be surprised if he did an "about-face" on a philosophy he's had most of his life, but you never know. He seems like a decent person and if he's open-minded in the least, might take some of the LSW info and use it for his students.

[iacas]

I loaned my copy to the new General Manager/PGA Teaching Pro at the local club.

Just by talking with him for a few minutes, he seems to be pretty conventional - especially regarding practice time (short game more important than full swing). I'm curious to hear what he thinks about the book. From my experience with human nature, I'd be surprised if he did an "about-face" on a philosophy he's had most of his life, but you never know. He seems like a decent person and if he's open-minded in the least, might take some of the LSW info and use it for his students.

I'll definitely be interested in that.

There are roughly three groups out there:

• Those who are adamant that the short game is more important than it is and won't change their minds.
• Those who believe the short game is more important because they've always heard it, but can be swayed with good, solid information.
• Those who always had an inkling the full swing mattered, and are easily convinced with good, solid information.

Lowest Score Wins is for the latter two.

Fortunately, the people buying books are in the latter two groups. The first group is set in their ways and doesn't tend to be an " Explorer ."

[JonMA1]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'll definitely be interested in that.

There are roughly three groups out there:

Those who are adamant that the short game is more important than it is and won't change their minds.

Those who believe the short game is more important because they've always heard it, but can be swayed with good, solid information.

Those who always had an inkling the full swing mattered, and are easily convinced with good, solid information.

Lowest Score Wins is for the latter two.

Fortunately, the people buying books are in the latter two groups. The first group is set in their ways and doesn't tend to be an "Explorer."

When asked which was harder to learn - full swing mechanics vs a short game swing - he agreed that the mechanics were harder to learn on a full swing, but that learning the "touch" of a good short game takes a lot of work. Ok, I'll buy that. There are times where I'll land a chip exactly where I was trying and it ends up being wrong. But it's not like LSW discourages ANY short game practice. it simply puts the right amount of emphasis on it by using SV's.

In my uneducated opinion, playing as many rounds as possible and experimenting with the different short game shots with different lies is a good way to learn short game "touch".

What I see from a lot of posts regarding the book, is that people on both sides tend to generalize too much. I don't read "practice your full swing all the time" or "pull out the longest club every time". I read "unless you have a glaring weakness, practice this ratio which is based on statistics" or "pull the longer club if your shot zones make it the logical choice".

[Ernest Jones]

When asked which was harder to learn - full swing mechanics vs a short game swing - he agreed that the mechanics were harder to learn on a full swing, but that learning the "touch" of a good short game takes a lot of work. Ok, I'll buy that. There are times where I'll land a chip exactly where I was trying and it ends up being wrong. But it's not like LSW discourages ANY short game practice. it simply puts the right amount of emphasis on it by using SV's. In my uneducated opinion, playing as many rounds as possible and experimenting with the different short game shots with different lies is a good way to learn short game "touch". What I see from a lot of posts regarding the book, is that people on both sides tend to generalize too much. I don't read "practice your full swing all the time" or "pull out the longest club every time". I read "unless you have a glaring weakness, practice this ratio which is based on statistics" or "pull the longer club if your shot zones make it the logical choice".

I think "touch" is only difficult for people who try to learn the "mechanics" of touch. Folks that talk about being the putter head halfway to their back foot for an 8 footer, even with back foot for 15' and some other "position" for a 20 footer and so on. Distance control on putts and pitches should be all feel, like tossing a ball. Look where you want it to land and pitch it there just like you would tossing a ball.

[JonMA1]

I think "touch" is only difficult for people who try to learn the "mechanics" of touch. Folks that talk about being the putter head halfway to their back foot for an 8 footer, even with back foot for 15' and some other "position" for a 20 footer and so on. Distance control on putts and pitches should be all feel, like tossing a ball. Look where you want it to land and pitch it there just like you would tossing a ball.

Makes sense. If you asked me to toss a golf ball and get it as close to the hole as possible, I'd probably do ok. It's an action we've all done since we were small children - we wouldn't think about how far back we'd move our arm, we'd just look at the target and react.

I wonder if that's why you see the pros often take so many practice swings while looking at the their target on a tough chip or flop shot. It's almost like they're calibrating the effort based on what they feel will be correct???

[Ernest Jones]

I wonder if that's why you see the pros often take so many practice swings while looking at the their target on a tough chip or flop shot. It's almost like they're calibrating the effort based on what they feel will be correct???

That's what I do on pitches and putts, look at the hole and makes some rehearsal swings while visualizing the trajectory or roll. On putts I also think in terms of weight as opposed to speed. You will also often see pros making underhand ball tossing motions without a club to get a feel on pitches. I think I've often seen Phil do that.

[Stretch]

Reading this again at the moment. Definitely the kind of book that rewards multiple revisits -- it is informationally dense and you (well, me at least) tend to unearth different nuggets of wisdom each time.

[Mac62]

I think "touch" is only difficult for people who try to learn the "mechanics" of touch. Folks that talk about being the putter head halfway to their back foot for an 8 footer, even with back foot for 15' and some other "position" for a 20 footer and so on. Distance control on putts and pitches should be all feel, like tossing a ball. Look where you want it to land and pitch it there just like you would tossing a ball.

I agree.  Static "measurements" like that don't take into consideration whether the putt is uphill/downhill, fast vs. slow greens, etc.  A fast, downhill 15-foot putt hit with the 'back foot to front foot' stroke is going to end up a lot differently than a slow, uphill 15-footer hit with the same stroke.  Or what about the tricky ones such as where you have to go uphill to the crest of a tier, then downhill to the cup from there?  The short game is the one place on the course where maybe feel IS real.

[mvmac]

When asked which was harder to learn - full swing mechanics vs a short game swing - he agreed that the mechanics were harder to learn on a full swing, but that learning the "touch" of a good short game takes a lot of work. Ok, I'll buy that.

It actually doesn't take much work. The better the mechanics, the more consistent the contact becomes, the better the "touch" becomes. And having good short game mechanics is easier to accomplish than full swing.