Is being long off the tee a pipe dream?

[vangator]

Would you really want to see a novice skier on a crowded black diamond hill? It's not so much playing from the tees that are easiest, more about playing from tees that fit my game. Personally, I'll mix it up between the different middle tees (blues and whites) sometimes in the same round because it can drastically change the way you play a course. But why in the world would anyone play from the tips if they were unable to carry a water hazard for example? What would you have them do, layup so that their second shot is from the women's tees? I think I get your point. As is the case in most sports, you want the tough competition. I'd rather get my butt kicked going up against a pro tennis player than roll over someone who just started playing the game. If I got to the point where a set of tees is no longer challenging, I'd probably move back. Sadly, that hasn't happened from the forward/middle tees.

Hopefully every golfer takes one thing at a time they are not good at and improve it. You'd be surprised at how your scores drop. I have a couple of golfers on my team that are just resigned to play double bogey golf. Never practice. Never even putt before going out. But they do chip in for the beer in the clubhouse, so all is not bad. I literally play golf one shot at a time. On the tee, I pick out a spot where I want the ball to be in the fairway. If I pull it off, I have a feeling of success. And so on. So if I were to play Pebble Beach, I'd want to play the tips. And each shot becomes a mini success story. To me it's no fun to hit drivers and wedges all day (unless I'm playing for money). But there's no fun in playing from the trees all day long either. So it's all about increasing your skill level and feel the challenge that the course designers envisioned.

[Lihu]

[/quote] [quote name="JonMA1" url="/t/77314/is-being-long-off-the-tee-a-pipe-dream/36#post_1058370"]Would you really want to see a novice skier on a crowded black diamond hill? It's not so much playing from the tees that are easiest, more about playing from tees that fit my game. Personally, I'll mix it up between the different middle tees (blues and whites) sometimes in the same round because it can drastically change the way you play a course. But why in the world would anyone play from the tips if they were unable to carry a water hazard for example? What would you have them do, layup so that their second shot is from the women's tees? I think I get your point. As is the case in most sports, you want the tough competition. I'd rather get my butt kicked going up against a pro tennis player than roll over someone who just started playing the game. If I got to the point where a set of tees is no longer challenging, I'd probably move back. Sadly, that hasn't happened from the forward/middle tees. [/quote] Playing one set up is more like skiing intermediate (blue), rather than diamond. Also, novices are more apt to be found at the bottom of a diamond or double diamond slope. If I tried to play the championship tees a year ago, it would have been plain frustrating. Yesterday, while I got partnered with two really long hitters, I also got partnered with a beginning golfer. At least, this was his second week on an actual course. His tee shots were probably about the same as mine, only a few yards shorter because he was playing the white tees, as he was on the driving range and simulator for a couple years, but I don't recall him not topping his irons once even off the fairway. I'm guessing he was on the harder course only because the short course was closed for a tournament. After struggling for 6 holes, he left the course and didn't even finish the hole. You are correct that a novice should not be on a difficult course, even playing the easiest tees, but when you get to the point where you are about one shot behind the better players on the approaches, it's not so bad. That's bogey golf. When you graduate from the bunny slopes, start the intermediates, then advanced when those are controllable and finally expert if you have the skill.

[newtogolf]

People should progress to longer tees when they feel their game can handle the distance.  Handicaps account for the tee box played from so it's not like a handicap from the whites is any less valid than a handicap from the blues.

I started playing the blue tees more this summer because all our club tournaments are from the blues and longer so I want to be more familiar with how the course plays from that set of tees.

[CarlSpackler]

I don't think I can add anything here, but will tell you that I am 5'-6" and in no way athletic. I started the year driving around 220ish. With the help of some folks here and a new driver, I'm now in the 240ish and sometimes higher. I drove one in a scramble a few weeks ago that felt really good. I laser'd the group behind us on the tee at 288. There wasn't much wind that day not to mention it was quite chilly out. Logic would dictate that I can drive longer on a regular basis with more swing improvements / consistency.

[JonMA1]

Hopefully every golfer takes one thing at a time they are not good at and improve it. You'd be surprised at how your scores drop.

I have a couple of golfers on my team that are just resigned to play double bogey golf. Never practice. Never even putt before going out. But they do chip in for the beer in the clubhouse, so all is not bad.

I literally play golf one shot at a time. On the tee, I pick out a spot where I want the ball to be in the fairway. If I pull it off, I have a feeling of success. And so on. So if I were to play Pebble Beach, I'd want to play the tips. And each shot becomes a mini success story. To me it's no fun to hit drivers and wedges all day (unless I'm playing for money).

But there's no fun in playing from the trees all day long either. So it's all about increasing your skill level and feel the challenge that the course designers envisioned.

I think that's really good advice on improving and enjoying the game. Your last sentence was kind of my point of playing the course within your abilities or maybe just a bit beyond.

Because of this thread, I might play one round from the tips this year if no one is behind me. This will entail a drive over a swamp I don't think I can carry on my best day and threading the needle from 165 yards on a very tight par three green. At that distance, the course designers made it challenging for someone with a longer driver and more accurate iron play than I possess. It will be an interesting experiment.

[/quote]

Playing one set up is more like skiing intermediate (blue), rather than diamond. Also, novices are more apt to be found at the bottom of a diamond or double diamond slope.

If I tried to play the championship tees a year ago, it would have been plain frustrating. Yesterday, while I got partnered with two really long hitters, I also got partnered with a beginning golfer. At least, this was his second week on an actual course. His tee shots were probably about the same as mine, only a few yards shorter because he was playing the white tees, as he was on the driving range and simulator for a couple years, but I don't recall him not topping his irons once even off the fairway. I'm guessing he was on the harder course only because the short course was closed for a tournament. After struggling for 6 holes, he left the course and didn't even finish the hole.

You are correct that a novice should not be on a difficult course, even playing the easiest tees, but when you get to the point where you are about one shot behind the better players on the approaches, it's not so bad. That's bogey golf.

When you graduate from the bunny slopes, start the intermediates, then advanced when those are controllable and finally expert if you have the skill.

Yesterday, I played a course I'd never played and mistakenly played from tees that were 3333 yards. I couldn't reach many of the par fours in 2 but still ended up shooting about the same score as I do from my normally shorter distances. It was tremendously rewarding. I'm not sure what would have happened from the tips (3469 yards 37/139). This course was much more like those on TV where the  greens were guarded with deep bunkers - not something I really wanted to approach with a fairway club. Overall, I think it was easier than my home course (which isn't rated). It was just a good day where my driver and irons were on.

I still contend that if the course would have been more crowded, playing from the whites (3065) would have been the right kind of challenge and more responsible considering those playing behind me.

[Lihu]

Yesterday, I played a course I'd never played and mistakenly played from tees that were 3333 yards. I couldn't reach many of the par fours in 2 but still ended up shooting about the same score as I do from my normally shorter distances. It was tremendously rewarding. I'm not sure what would have happened from the tips (3469 yards 37/139). This course was much more like those on TV where the  greens were guarded with deep bunkers - not something I really wanted to approach with a fairway club. Overall, I think it was easier than my home course (which isn't rated). It was just a good day where my driver and irons were on.

I still contend that if the course would have been more crowded, playing from the whites (3065) would have been the right kind of challenge and more responsible considering those playing behind me.

Given the yardage difference probably not too much different if you are already scrambling. Probably one club more for 13 holes or maybe one or two tee boxes 20 yards back and 9 holes with one club more or something like that.

The slope is going to make some difference.

[JonMA1]

I don't think I can add anything here, but will tell you that I am 5'-6" and in no way athletic. I started the year driving around 220ish. With the help of some folks here and a new driver, I'm now in the 240ish and sometimes higher. I drove one in a scramble a few weeks ago that felt really good. I laser'd the group behind us on the tee at 288. There wasn't much wind that day not to mention it was quite chilly out. Logic would dictate that I can drive longer on a regular basis with more swing improvements / consistency.

I think this says a lot in regards to the OP. Maybe we have less control over maximizing our physical ability than we do learning sound mechanics.

My uneducated opinion is that if you can drive the ball 240 yards consistently, you have a good swing and are skilled enough to regularly hit the sweet spot on your driver - which of course means you're probably a better athlete than you think. Being athletic isn't all about speed and strength. It's also about being able to get in the right frame of mind, controlling your body, balance, hand/eye coordination, etc.

Of course, if someone who is stronger, faster and had the other attributes were to learn your swing, they'd likely be posting about driving the ball 300 yards.

I'm 56 and shot my first even par round last year. 6,600 yard, par 72 course. I was probably close to 30 before I broke 80 and got consistently into single digits.

Just sayin'........

I love this stuff. Knowing that just because we're over 50 doesn't necessarily mean our best days are behind us. This kind of post is as valuable as any technical information.

[Sacman]

I know that with my personal swing I hit my drives consistently 240 yards. There are some days depending on contact, firmness of the fairway, and wind I will get some extra yardage. I always know that I can count on hitting the ball at least 240.

I also find that I hit the ball farther off the tee on my first few holes. I'm not as warmed up and my swing is shorter.

[baw1]

I don't think I can add anything here, but will tell you that I am 5'-6" and in no way athletic. I started the year driving around 220ish. With the help of some folks here and a new driver, I'm now in the 240ish and sometimes higher. I drove one in a scramble a few weeks ago that felt really good. I laser'd the group behind us on the tee at 288. There wasn't much wind that day not to mention it was quite chilly out. Logic would dictate that I can drive longer on a regular basis with more swing improvements / consistency.

That's great. It really sounds like swing/mechanics/technique has much more to do with it than "athleticism". This is my observation from the course as well. I frequently see guys with nice driving ability that don't really look that athletic. With that said, however, I presume that the combination of good/proper technique and "athleticism" could be quite deadly.

[Lihu]

That's great. It really sounds like swing/mechanics/technique has much more to do with it than "athleticism". This is my observation from the course as well. I frequently see guys with nice driving ability that don't really look that athletic. With that said, however, I presume that the combination of good/proper technique and "athleticism" could be quite deadly.

There are plenty of people who can really drive the ball no matter how tall/big they are. I've literally seen guys from 5'4" to 6'10" who hold their own on the course.

As far as pros, Rory is only 5'9", Jamie Saldowski 5'10" and these are amongst the longest hitters in their field. Size does not matter as much as talent, but there is a relatively low probability of being one of them <1%.

[vangator]

There are plenty of people who can really drive the ball no matter how tall/big they are. I've literally seen guys from 5'4" to 6'10" who hold their own on the course. As far as pros, Rory is only 5'9", Jamie Saldowski 5'10" and these are amongst the longest hitters in their field. Size does not matter as much as talent , but there is a relatively low probability of being one of them <1%.

Sounds like bragging. :-) Made me laugh.

[Lihu]

Sounds like bragging. :-) Made me laugh.

I probably could have worded that a bit better. . .:8) "Compared to their competition they are relatively small people. . ."

[vangator]

I've never thought a person has to be a great athlete to play good golf. Guys like Larry Mize and Corey Pavin never struck me as great athletes (kind of puny), but they're both not only good golfers, but major winners. Technique. The ball is sitting still. Only weighs 1.6 ounces. You can place it up on a tee almost half your shots (not counting putts). Being an athlete does make it easier. Might help for quicker improvement.

[JonMA1]

I've never thought a person has to be a great athlete to play good golf. Guys like Larry Mize and Corey Pavin never struck me as great athletes (kind of puny), but they're both not only good golfers, but major winners.

Technique. The ball is sitting still. Only weighs 1.6 ounces. You can place it up on a tee almost half your shots (not counting putts).

Being an athlete does make it easier. Might help for quicker improvement.

Maybe my definition of "athlete" isn't accurate, but I still think it's more than just being fast and/or strong. IMO, there are so many other intangibles. Isn't the ability to mentally focus a big part of athletics? How about being able to generate greater power with the most efficient amount of effort? Getting your body to do virtually the same motion with very little margin of error for 18 holes. To me, that's incredible athleticism.

As far as the ball sitting still in golf, if you gave me a choice of hitting an average curve from a high school pitcher, returning a 100 mph tennis serve, or hitting a stationary golf ball to a green from 180 yards for $100,  I'd pick anything but the golf shot. I'm not saying I can't do it, just that it's probably the hardest of the three.

I think there's a great deal of speed, power and athletic ability in golf. It's just not in the form of sprinting or powerlifting.

[vangator]

Maybe my definition of "athlete" isn't accurate, but I still think it's more than just being fast and/or strong. IMO, there are so many other intangibles. Isn't the ability to mentally focus a big part of athletics? How about being able to generate greater power with the most efficient amount of effort? Getting your body to do virtually the same motion with very little margin of error for 18 holes. To me, that's incredible athleticism. As far as the ball sitting still in golf, if you gave me a choice of hitting an average curve from a high school pitcher, returning a 100 mph tennis serve, or hitting a stationary golf ball to a green from 180 yards for $100,  I'd pick anything but the golf shot. I'm not saying I can't do it, just that it's probably the hardest of the three. I think there's a great deal of speed, power and athletic ability in golf. It's just not in the form of sprinting or powerlifting.

Maybe that's true now, but after a while, most golfers who progress will hit greens fairly regularly but a .300 hitter is in the Hall of Fame and most will never be able to return a 100 mph serve, ever.

[saevel25]

Maybe my definition of "athlete" isn't accurate, but I still think it's more than just being fast and/or strong.

I would say it is being more physically gifted. There are plenty of Athletes who have struggled in their sports due to poor mental focus. The greats are both physically gifted and mentally prepared.

How about being able to generate greater power with the most efficient amount of effort?

That is more about mechanics and can be taught.

Getting your body to do virtually the same motion with very little margin of error for 18 holes. To me, that's incredible athleticism.

Even bad golfers have a very repeatable swing. They are just repeating a bad swing. If you take a golfer and video tape their swing, you might not be able to see anything different between the two and they can produce two entirely different shots. It has nothing really to do with athleticism, anybody can repeat a swing.

Maybe that's true now, but after a while, most golfers who progress will hit greens fairly regularly but a .300 hitter is in the Hall of Fame and most will never be able to return a 100 mph serve, ever.

I would say that an MLB HOF player could learn to return a 100 mph serve. A tennis court is 78 feet long. From what I found a ball will loose about 35-45% of it's speed on the bounce. So lets say 38%. That means a 100 mph serve will come into the returner at 62 mph.

So a Tennis player will watch a ball come at them at 100 mph for the first 60 feet, then the ball comes at them at 62 mph for the final 18 feet. I assume their serve gets very close to the service line. If the ball bounces before then it becomes easier to return because the ball will then travel a farther distance at a reduced speed.

While an MLB HOF player gets to see the ball come at them at 95 mph from lets say 55 ft (it's 60.5 feet from the rubber to the plate, but a pitcher doesn't release the ball from the rubber).

Just looking in terms of reaction time. A Tennis player receiving a 100 mph serve has about 0.6 seconds for the ball to go from servers racket to the other side baseline. For an MLB receiving a 95 mph fastball, they have about 0.40 seconds from pitchers hand to the plate.

So really an MLB HOF has a harder time in terms of reaction time to hit a fastball.

Since MLB players are use to seeing fast moving objects, I think they could easily get use to a 100 mph tennis serve.

[brice]

Being 5'9" 160lbs with a 120mph club head speed, I can confirm strength isn't all there is to it

[JonMA1]

I would say it is being more physically gifted. There are plenty of Athletes who have struggled in their sports due to poor mental focus. The greats are both physically gifted and mentally prepared.

I agree 100% physically gifted might be a better term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

That is more about mechanics and can be taught.

I think this can be true with just about any sport - even sprinting and powerlifting involve some level of technique.

Even bad golfers have a very repeatable swing. They are just repeating a bad swing. If you take a golfer and video tape their swing, you might not be able to see anything different between the two and they can produce two entirely different shots. It has nothing really to do with athleticism, anybody can repeat a swing.

I've seen this posted before and I have to believe it's true. But don't better golfers not only have better swings, but better capabilities to reduce the poor shots? Or do you think it's entirely in the mechanics?

I would say that an MLB HOF player could learn to return a 100 mph serve. A tennis court is 78 feet long. From what I found a ball will loose about 35-45% of it's speed on the bounce. So lets say 38%. That means a 100 mph serve will come into the returner at 62 mph.

So a Tennis player will watch a ball come at them at 100 mph for the first 60 feet, then the ball comes at them at 62 mph for the final 18 feet. I assume their serve gets very close to the service line. If the ball bounces before then it becomes easier to return because the ball will then travel a farther distance at a reduced speed.

For the record, I wasn't talking about hitting a Major League curve or returning a serve from a professional tennis player. That would be impossible for me.

Regarding the tennis serve, just because it bounces and slows down doesn't necessarily make it any easier. It can be argued that the change in speed and variation of surface/bounce can make it more difficult. Having said that, the sweet spot on a tennis racquet is huge and all you really have to do is let the energy from the ball do most of the work.

My point to referencing those other sports is that I'm not a horrible athlete. Golf is simply the hardest sport I've ever tried to learn.