"Lowest Score Wins" by Barzeski and Wedzik

[ajw426]

I am a little bit surprised that so many people find the shot zones that revolutionary to them. It is absolutely, in my opinion, the best way to plan ones shots. It is something I have been doing for years though, and I assumed most golfers did as well. Your method IS much more thorough than my mental mapping, however. The Separation Values are right up my alley. I have always been continually reassessing where to focus my efforts, and the SV statistics provided really help me be much more confident that I am working on the right areas. Loads of good info (putting speed and distance vs risk) for golfers of all types. I always love good scientific and statistical analysis and advice, and LSW provides.

[Shindig]

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.

I'll add to this: when my short game was faltering back in December, it took about five minutes for Mike to set me straight on it again.

[JonMA1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonMA1

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.

I think what he meant - and maybe I didn't do a good job of describing it - is learning how hard or easy to hit the chip/pitch/flop shot you're attempting. I think he would agree that the mechanics of the short game are a bit easier to accomplish. But it's one thing to get out of the sand and another to get out with a chance for a one putt.

I'm not arguing where more time should be dedicated. I'm probably guilty of devoting too much time to the full swing . Edit: Since this is a glaring weakness, I'm not spending enough time. I meant to say I'm spending more than the 65% suggested.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I had the mechanics down on a full swing and I execute them properly, my shot pattern is going to be small. I'm going to get the distance and direction I'm after (I'm speaking of a stock shot). There shouldn't be a lot of surprises. Obviously (painfully so), this takes years to develop.

On a pitch, everything is slower and the movements are smaller so it may not take years to learn to hit the desired shots. As a high handicapper, I can often land the ball exactly on the spot of the green I want to. But what is often the case is that I'll misjudge where the spot should be or which type of club/shot I used to land it there.

I think developing that judgment takes longer than knowing which club to pull for a full swing. At least, I think that's what he was saying.

[Nagah]

I had a chat yesterday to the trainee Pro where I've played golf many years ago. He told me how bad his putting was not turning enough putts into birdies having to settle for par. What a bastard problem to have! However he did say competing even at this level guys are shooting sub par rounds as in 67/68 and he's shooting 70/71.

I said no use being a great putter if it takes you 4 strokes to get on the green.

Exactly was his reply.

I said you just need to get the ball closer or in a position that the putt itsn't  going to break as hard.

He Said thanks Ill work on that.

Strange this guy has a great short game but once he realised its not his short game but his approaches that needs improvement he understood what he needs to work on.

BTW This is what separates LSW from other books. The separation values and how to achieve it is the core of the book. Plus putting a few common myths about the game to bed by backing it up with stats.

[iacas]

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.

Dave and I sometimes go back and read a page or two together, and will often surprise ourselves by what is in there. We'll read a section and think for a split second "that was good, who wrote this?!" Y'all will have to take my word for it that we're not being jackasses when we do this… we just forgot how much stuff is in there too. "Informationally dense" is a compliment, I think. It's a 240-page book, but… we wanted to build almost stand-alone chapters and pack as much in as we could. I think we did a decent job. At least an A or A-. :)

We also still cannot imagine or understand why the book hadn't been written before, but maybe that's because we don't give ourselves enough credit. We're pretty good at what we do, it turns out.

Thanks.

I am a little bit surprised that so many people find the shot zones that revolutionary to them. It is absolutely, in my opinion, the best way to plan ones shots.

Yeah, I think mapping them is "new" to many, but I agree - alone they aren't "revolutionary." Virtually no one stand-alone thing in the book is. I do think that the Shot Zones paired with the Decision Maps could be called "revolutionary. I don't think anyone has made GamePlanning so straightforward before.

And that's enough bragging now. I feel like I have to go take another shower. Blech.

[boston blackie]

That so many find LSW helpful is heartening to the authors, I'm sure.  For me, it is too technical and I find analytical explanations of shot zones, etc, more  than I wish to get involved with in order to enhance my enjoyment of the game.

[Mac62]

That so many find LSW helpful is heartening to the authors, I'm sure.  For me, it is too technical and I find analytical explanations of shot zones, etc, more  than I wish to get involved with in order to enhance my enjoyment of the game.

To me, it's not terribly different (in concept) from "traditional" course management - basically, aim away from trouble and keep your ball in play.  The difference is that with your Shot Zones mapped out, you'll have a better knowledge of what your tendencies are and it allows you to make decisions that are a little more educated than just a general "stay away from the bunker" or "avoid the water".  I tend to enjoy the game a little more when I'm shooting better scores and my most-used club isn't a ball retriever.

[billchao]

To me, it's not terribly different (in concept) from "traditional" course management - basically, aim away from trouble and keep your ball in play.

I agree about what you stated, but there's a large part of traditional course management that tells people to lay up to a full wedge or iron shot as the optimal play, and the stats have indicated that mentality is wrong. Closer to the hole is better as long as there isn't trouble in play. LSW dispels that myth, as well as some other conventional wisdom.

[Phil McGleno]

That so many find LSW helpful is heartening to the authors, I'm sure.  For me, it is too technical and I find analytical explanations of shot zones, etc, more  than I wish to get involved with in order to enhance my enjoyment of the game.

It is not a book about enhancing your enjoyment of the game but about shooting lower scores. [quote name="billchao" url="/t/75141/lowest-score-wins-by-barzeski-and-wedzik/378#post_1140188"]I agree about what you stated, but there's a large part of traditional course management that tells people to lay up to a full wedge or iron shot as the optimal play, and the stats have indicated that mentality is wrong. Closer to the hole is better as long as there isn't trouble in play. LSW dispels that myth, as well as some other conventional wisdom.[/quote] Plus a lot of the books will tell you to hit the fairway even if it means hitting a hybrid off the tee and I think the book does a good job of dispelling that notion.-I have always been able to get a pretty good score out of my rounds but it was not until I read the book that the shading stuff made sense and made me realize I had kind of been doing that all along but now I understood what it was and they EXPLAINED it so simply and beautifully.

[billchao]

Plus a lot of the books will tell you to hit the fairway even if it means hitting a hybrid off the tee and I think the book does a good job of dispelling that notion.-I have always been able to get a pretty good score out of my rounds but it was not until I read the book that the shading stuff made sense and made me realize I had kind of been doing that all along but now I understood what it was and they EXPLAINED it so simply and beautifully.

Yea, I think this is one of those things that good players tend to do instinctively, but it just wasn't something that I can ever recall reading anywhere before. Traditional course management tends to lean too much towards the conservative side. I agree that it's explained very well in the book.

[Abu3baid]

Yea, I think this is one of those things that good players tend to do instinctively, but it just wasn't something that I can ever recall reading anywhere before. Traditional course management tends to lean too much towards the conservative side. I agree that it's explained very well in the book.

I actually have never read a course management book or anything similar, but as bad as I am I never even considered or heard of the term laying up... I was always trying to get as close to the hole as possible (not successful at it, but that doesn't matter in this conversation). Now when I finally start having a predictable ball flight and a one sided miss I will be able to systematically plan my rounds since the book laid it out for me!

[Shindig]

I actually have never read a course management book or anything similar, but as bad as I am I never even considered or heard of the term laying up... I was always trying to get as close to the hole as possible (not successful at it, but that doesn't matter in this conversation). Now when I finally start having a predictable ball flight and a one sided miss I will be able to systematically plan my rounds since the book laid it out for me!

Just to put it into context, typical advice -- especially to high handicappers -- is something like "if you're 200 yards out, even if you have a good lie in the fairway, instead of a 3-Wood, hit a PW and then hit your PW again for the next shot. That way, fewer bad things can happen." This is obviously nonsense (the worse the player, the more problems can arise with TWO full swings, even with wedges). But several course management books suggest it. Harmon's playing lessons goes over this point a few times, IIRC.

[JonMA1]

That so many find LSW helpful is heartening to the authors, I'm sure.  For me, it is too technical and I find analytical explanations of shot zones, etc, more  than I wish to get involved with in order to enhance my enjoyment of the game.

I think everyone has their idea of what they want to get out of golf. Most of us want to get better, but it's a matter of how much effort we are willing or able to put into it. I may not go out and map my shot zones, for example, but there are so many other useful concepts in the book that aren't too difficult to grasp - even for a dummy like me.

I think the authors did a great job of making the book useful for most of us, regardless of our skill level or dedication to getting better.

Just to put it into context, typical advice -- especially to high handicappers -- is something like "if you're 200 yards out, even if you have a good lie in the fairway, instead of a 3-Wood, hit a PW and then hit your PW again for the next shot. That way, fewer bad things can happen."

This is obviously nonsense (the worse the player, the more problems can arise with TWO full swings, even with wedges). But several course management books suggest it. Harmon's playing lessons goes over this point a few times, IIRC.

While I agree that way too much emphasis in conventional wisdom is geared towards always playing safe, I don't get the same "always go for it" message from LSW that many seem to get.

In your example above, a high handicapper is likely going to have a pretty large zone for a 3-wood. Laying up may be the right tactic. It just depends on how tight the green is (shading) and how small the players shot zone is with the club. However, I do agree there's probably no situation where a ball in the middle of the fairway would ever call for the use of two PW's.

I think an important message from LSW is for us to work on our 3-wood so that we'll eventually have the ability to hit that tight 200 yard shot.

[Mac62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac62

To me, it's not terribly different (in concept) from "traditional" course management - basically, aim away from trouble and keep your ball in play.

I agree about what you stated, but there's a large part of traditional course management that tells people to lay up to a full wedge or iron shot as the optimal play, and the stats have indicated that mentality is wrong. Closer to the hole is better as long as there isn't trouble in play. LSW dispels that myth, as well as some other conventional wisdom.

Yeah, I oversimplified it in my post and don't mean to infer that Erik and Dave didn't cover any new ground.  It certainly goes into much more depth than traditional course management/game planning and dispels a lot of conventional wisdom we've all heard for years.  I just don't find it overly technical/analytical as the OP said.  Shot Zones require a bit of effort, but aren't hard to understand.  Shading takes a bit of thought, but I can see where it would quickly become an automatic part of your assessment/game planning and not take any more time than the traditional "stay away from that water on the left".  It's not going to take any more time, the diagram in your head is just going to look different.

[JonMA1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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."

I saw the pro today and asked him what he thought of LSW. To his credit, he seemed very interested in the book... "a good read so far". Told me he really likes the "science and data" used to support the information. If he's only halfway through it, he has gotten to the shot zones and decision mapping yet.

He had told me last week that he's read the majority of golf books and plans to add a library/reading room the clubhouse (he's the new GM). I don't know how often that's done, but it seems like solid idea.

[boston blackie]

My copy now on ebay auction until 5/17

[Ernest Jones]

My copy now on ebay auction until 5/17

Lol. Stay classy.

[newtogolf]

That so many find LSW helpful is heartening to the authors, I'm sure.  For me, it is too technical and I find analytical explanations of shot zones, etc, more  than I wish to get involved with in order to enhance my enjoyment of the game.

For many of us, shooting lower scores does enhance our enjoyment of the game, which is why we all believe LSW is one of the best books out there.  It's really not a "technical" book but the nature of the material does get technical at times to help emphasize the key points.  Until you sell it, give it another quick read through, you might find some tidbits that will help you enjoy golf more.