Definition of "Good Ballstriker"

[Paiste]

  Golfingdad said:

Bingo, now you're getting it. I'm a mid single digit and I can tell you without bias that I am NOT a good ball striker. Not by any stretch.

You seem to be defining ball striking too literally, rather than using the accepted golf definition. You only seem to be referring to the club to ball contact with no other considerations, whereas the real definition of good ball striking, like David said, encompasses not only crisp, solid contact, but also hitting it the right direction, the right distance, the right trajectory and with the right curve. Good ball strikers can consistently do all of that.

Wait a minute, you're saying that to be a good ball striker you have to be a single digit or even low single digit. You're a 5.4 hcp and you're not a good ball striker by any means. How did you get to that handicap if you're not a good ball striker? That doesn't make sense to me. You're contradicting yourself. You have a low handicap so you have to be a decent enough ball striker to get to that point. Like you guys said, you can't get to that level of play on short game alone.

I know you said low single digit but you're not that far off that at a 5.4 hcp that your ball striking is poor.

[Slice of Life]

This thread hurts my brain.

[BENtSwing]

  Slice of Life said:

This thread hurts my brain.

LOL seriously...

This is an idea for a different thread obviously, but maybe a moderator can just give a "TST-defintion" of good and/or great "ball striking?" I understand that it's not a cut-and-dry subject, but at least we can have something to refer to in these "discussions."

*Although some will argue with any statement that involves the phrases "scratch golfer" "figure it out" "great ball striking" or "workability with forged blades."

[Slice of Life]

  BENtSwing said:

LOL seriously...

This is an idea for a different thread obviously, but maybe a moderator can just give a "TST-defintion" of good and/or great "ball striking?" I understand that it's not a cut-and-dry subject, but at least we can have something to refer to in these "discussions."

*Although some will argue with any statement that involves the phrases "scratch golfer" "figure it out" "great ball striking" or "workability with forged blades."

Why is it even a question? A good ball striker can hit the ball the way he wants with the results he wants on a regular basis. The end. lol

[Lihu]

  Paiste said:

Wait a minute, you're saying that to be a good ball striker you have to be a single digit or even low single digit. You're a 5.4 hcp and you're not a good ball striker by any means. How did you get to that handicap if you're not a good ball striker? That doesn't make sense to me. You're contradicting yourself. You have a low handicap so you have to be a decent enough ball striker to get to that point. Like you guys said, you can't get to that level of play on short game alone. I know you said low single digit but you're not that far off that at a 5.4 hcp that your ball striking is poor.

I'm going out on a short limb here, and conclude that it's his opinion that he does not think he's a good ball striker. He's definitely better than us.

[Paiste]

  Lihu said:

I'm going out on a short limb here, and conclude that it's his opinion that he does not think he's a good ball striker.

He's definitely better than us.

Good point. Maybe he's being modest so to keep his ego in check, which is very smart. Personally though, I highly doubt that he doesn't have very good ball striking abilities to be a 5.4 hcp. That's a good player right there. It just makes  sense. I've been getting told in this thread that good ball striking and single to low single hcp go hand in hand. Well, wouldn't you have to have decent enough ball striking to be a 5.4?

[iacas]

@Paiste , you don't seem to realize it's all relative. I haven't been striking the ball well lately and I haven't shot over 75 for awhile.

[mvmac]

  Paiste said:

This is getting ridiculous. Now this is turning into a completely different topic altogether because I made a comment that wasn't literal. So what you guys are saying is that to be a good ball striker you pretty much have to be a pro or low single digit. Bullshit. I've read a lot of posts in these forums which pertain to people being good ball strikers but having the other aspects of their game falling short; the reason why their hcp is slightly on the higher side.

There is more to being a good ballstriker than just "hitting it solid". More on that below.

  BENtSwing said:

This is an idea for a different thread obviously, but maybe a moderator can just give a "TST-defintion" of good and/or great "ball striking?" I understand that it's not a cut-and-dry subject, but at least we can have something to refer to in these "discussions."

My definition would be someone that normally hits 11-14 greens and 16-18 near-GIR's (not on the green, on a relatively safe area, inside about 20 yards). Of all the stats, GIR is the one that correlates most strongly to lower scores.

[Paiste]

  iacas said:

@Paiste, you don't seem to realize it's all relative. I haven't been striking the ball well lately and I haven't shot over 75 for awhile.

Ok. I though that's what I was trying to say. Decent ball striking is relative to your level of play.

[iacas]

  Paiste said:

Ok. I though that's what I was trying to say. Decent ball striking is relative to your level of play.

No. There's some minimum level. No 20 is a "good ball striker." I'm a pretty darn good ball striker but not compared to a +3.

[BENtSwing]

  mvmac said:

My definition would be someone that normally hits 11-14 greens and 16-18 near-GIR's (not on the green, on a relatively safe area, inside about 20 yards). Of all the stats, GIR is the one that correlates most strongly to lower scores.

That's pretty dang good lol. Definitely gives a better perspective (for me anyway) on what "good" is, thanks.

I look at the PGA stats sometimes...last time I looked, the tour stats for GIR were 50% (worst) - 70% (best). These do not include nGIR, right?

[Paiste]

Listen guys, I don't want to come across as an a**hole because I'm actually pretty laid back. It's just that I'm stubborn. I love the game and I'm improving quite well at the moment.

I guess I'm just not wrapping my head around certain posts. Anyway, iacas, what do you mean when you say No. 20 and +3 when referring to ball striking?

[MS256]

  Paiste said:

Since Erik may have gone to bed. ;-) He means that you won't see a 20 handicap player that's a good ball striker and that he's not striking the ball as well as a +3 handicap player. A person might grind around the course with good course management and a good short game and have a handicap slightly lower than his ball striking would indicate but not by very much.

[mvmac]

  BENtSwing said:

That's pretty dang good lol. Definitely gives a better perspective (for me anyway) on what "good" is, thanks.

I look at the PGA stats sometimes...last time I looked, the tour stats for GIR were 50% (worst) - 70% (best). These do not include nGIR, right?

Like I said, it's not an "official" definition, just my definition, the short and simple version

No, the percentages do not include nGIR. And obviously when I was talking about a good ball striker hitting 11-14 greens, I wasn't referring to golfers playing PGA Tour tournament condition courses.

  Paiste said:

I guess I'm just not wrapping my head around certain posts. Anyway, iacas, what do you mean when you say No. 20 and +3 when referring to ball striking?

It's not No. as in number, Erik was saying no 20 handicap is a good ball striker. I know you weren't being literal but to help clarify things, you aren't going to find any good ball strikers that consistently shoot in the 80's. If they are actually good they are going to hit enough greens and near-greens to prevent them from shooting high scores. Even if their short game sucks.

With the +3, Erik was referring to a +3 handicap (player that shoots a 69 net 72).

  MS256 said:

A person might grind around the course with good course management and a good short game and have a handicap slightly lower than his ball striking would indicate but not by very much.

Not really as much about a good short game as it is about managing your misses, understanding your pattern and having good mechanics. So when Erik talks about not striking it well, he might play a round where he only hits a couple shots solid with the majority of his misses still being in play off the tee and either on the green or near the green with his approach shots.

[Lihu]

  BENtSwing said:

That's pretty dang good lol. Definitely gives a better perspective (for me anyway) on what "good" is, thanks. I look at the PGA stats sometimes...last time I looked, the tour stats for GIR were 50% (worst) - 70% (best). These do not include nGIR, right?

Yes, and sometimes they don't shoot for the green as well. You need to consider that the are way more accurate than anyone you have played. I've stood about 10 feet from about half a dozen pros while they are "thinking" about their shot, and sometimes hear what they are discussing with their caddies. Unfortunately, I'm about 20 to 30 feet from them when they hit, but they pretty much carry out what they discussed to a couple yards or so give or take my accuracy seeing stuff that far away. [quote name="Paiste" url="/t/77352/swing-dont-hit/54#post_1059804"]Listen guys, I don't want to come across as an a**hole because I'm actually pretty laid back. It's just that I'm stubborn. I love the game and I'm improving quite well at the moment. I guess I'm just not wrapping my head around certain posts. Anyway, iacas, what do you mean when you say No. 20 and +3 when referring to ball striking? [/quote] No 20 handicap will have good ball striking. A year ago, I would not have known this fact.

[billchao]

  Lihu said:

No 20 handicap will have good ball striking. A year ago, I would not have known this fact.

Yup. You'd have to be intentionally tanking it to shoot 90+ while hitting 12 GIR and 16 nGIR. Heck, one of my round this year I hit 7 GIR and 12 nGIR with 39 putts and I still managed to shoot 88. I probably would have shot in the 70s with five more GIR.

[Dave2512]

The only golfers I see that hit the ball consistently well are college team guys, low single digit golfers and some local teaching pros. The 4 handicap and up golfers I know simply know how to manage their miss and hit that miss well enough to still have a chance. I make ugly pars all the time. Just yesterday I thinned a 5 iron from 190 that rolled about 70 yards and hit the green at the perfect angle before stopping 15 feet from the hole. Honestly had I hit it well probably would have missed the green long. I don't miss left or right often almost always short

[AmazingWhacker]

  Abu3baid said:

well at least someone is starting to understand what it means.. :)

I still don't.. as I don't see the difference between the two.. and I hit the ball, or try to anyway :)

oh there's definitely a difference . .but it's way too hard to explain.  Take, for instance, Shawn Clement . .he's very often going on about how the ball is not your target.  From others you hear things like - "let the ball get in the way of your swing" . . when I first started seeing my current teacher, my head was full of those kinds of ideas.  He pretty much told me to forget all that stuff and just do what he said to do.  His particular teaching style doesn't involve much golf-swing theory . .just drills.  He would have me work on one until he thought I mastered it enough to move on to the next one - so far I've been through 4 drills in 2 years.

Anyway, after working on his drills for a couple years - I am all of a sudden swinging through the ball and not at it.  Now the idea makes sense to me . .I still can't explain it effectively, though.  Except  - yeah . . the ball is not your target . .whatever that means, lol.