Zeroing Out Hurting Your Game?

[mvmac]

http://blog.trackmangolf.com/zeroing-hurting-scorecard/

Must read for golfers, here's a little bit of the blog post.

Quote

All world class golfers have a stock shot and work the ball one way or another to eliminate the trouble side of the hole. For Lee Trevino and Jack Nicklaus, it was a push fade, for Tom Lehman and Zach Johnson, a push draw; for Corey Pavin, a pull fade, and for Matt Kuchar is a pull draw.

It’s a shot that they know they can put in play and it will keep them out of trouble. The shot will, without question, move one way or another, but never straight. Whether that “go-to” or “stock” shot is a fade or draw does not really matter. However, what does matter is that it’s a shot that consistently moves the ball towards the target, and rarely ever passes across the target.

Ben Hogan, known as the best ball striker to ever play the game was spot on when he said, “You only hit a straight ball by accident. The ball is going to move right or left every time you hit it, so you better make it go one way or the other”.

Hitting a stock shot is a lot like that of a professional bowler. A PBA bowler always bowls a curve towards the front pin. However, if the ball crosses the front pin, there is no chance for a strike. If they miss it on the front right of the front pin however (for a right handed bowler) they still have hope of a strike. Golf is no different. We need to learn to play golf on the offense and try to always work the ball towards the flag, but never allow the golf ball to cross the line of your target. This will create a one-way miss and allows you to swing with more freedom and consistency.

Jonathan Bryd, a player known as one of the best ball strikers on tour and who has been compared to Ben Hogan for his technique said the following: “I try to hit a stock draw, with my club path and face open to the target line. Having a stock shot keeps things simple in decision making and it helps by keeping my path consistent and allowing me to control the face. With all the pressure that comes with trying to win a tournament on the PGA Tour, a stock shot helps to have your go to under pressure situations”.

 

[Golfingdad]

9 minutes ago, mvmac said:

http://blog.trackmangolf.com/zeroing-hurting-scorecard/

That's good stuff ... except for the part about bowling.  He should have left that off because it's wrong and he's obviously not a bowler. 

[Big Lex]

Superb post. The most complete description of how to shape the ball that I've ever read. I've read many of those things, but never all in one place. Never explained so clearly.

Can you give me a sense of what it means - quantitatively - to align yourself "four degrees more" to the right (or left)?

I had another thread where I was asking for help regarding hitting intentional fades or slices as trouble shots, and reading your explanation, I think maybe I know why now. My natural shot is also a push draw, probably a bit too much push draw. I try to get fades by making stance adjustments only, and I probably don't open my stance nearly enough to get the path where it needs to me. And I know I probably always overdo the face angle adjustments...

Anyway....late to the party on this thread I know, but thanks. It's awesome.

 

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, mvmac said:

http://blog.trackmangolf.com/zeroing-hurting-scorecard/

Must read for golfers, here's a little bit of the blog post.

That's an interesting post. I've heard arguments on both sides of this notion, and I'm not yet convinced any one approach is the gospel truth.

I can see the merit (per Nicklaus' approach) in trying to match the shape of the shot to the shape of the hole or the green so that more of the ball's uncertain flight distance is over short grass or green (or avoiding hazards). From the fairway and rough, scratch players tend to have oblong shot patterns where distance is more variable than lateral dispersion, but that relationship gets flipped for shots from a tee.

I've also heard that having one basic shot (& shape) tends to promote consistency. But I'm not convinced that there is a specific advantage to having mostly draw versus mostly fade, versus mostly straight. IMO each one of those shots is going to have normal distribution type variations on either side of the intended target (pulls for a fader, pushes for a drawer). Plus courses vary hole-to-hole on the 'ideal' shot shape so there may be only a few holes net where a particular shape is a strategic advantage.

I do think it's possible that a slight fade may have some general advantages as overdoing it leads to a higher, softer shot that is more likely to stay put on landing where a low, hot hook may run until if finds even worse trouble through the rough. If you can work the ball either way with good strike consistency and predictability of the shot dispersion that would seem to be a strategic advantage to scoring. It does seem like a very plus skill, though.

Lee Trevino who is acknowledged as one of the best ball-strikers of all time said something interesting at a speaking engagement I saw on YouTube. To paraphrase, he said that people who thought he faded the ball because he had an open stance were wrong, "I was about dead straight". In digging his swing out of the dirt, he had come up with an open stance that roughly 'zeroed out' his steepish AoA / delivery with lots of shaft lean for a low-straight ball flight. Worked great in windy TX as well as for links golf at The Open Championship. I consider him a golfing genius. He could also fade and draw and alter his trajectory pretty much at will so he also had that going for him, but in his own estimation he considered his stock shot 'straight'.

I'm not discounting any POV at this point until I see some good hard data that shows particular shapes have definite scoring advantages (due to strategy, consistency, etc.) and on what types of courses / holes.

[Golfingdad]

Here's a simple question for the experts:

I know (and completely understand why) pros have a stock shot and play it 90-95% of the time.  I'm curious about the other 5-10%.  Barring obvious things, like obstructions, what makes them decide to work the ball the other way?

And a related follow-up:  Assuming a hole with a hazard all down one side, like such:

Is this the kind of situation where a pro would alter his normal shot shape?  Would it make sense to aim down the left and cut it towards the water?

Personally, I'm not comfortable doing that and am currently fine with aiming near the water and hitting it straight or drawing (or even hooking it), but I'm wondering if that is normal or unconventional.

[iacas]

57 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Here's a simple question for the experts:

I know (and completely understand why) pros have a stock shot and play it 90-95% of the time.  I'm curious about the other 5-10%.  Barring obvious things, like obstructions, what makes them decide to work the ball the other way?

A dogleg that's narrow enough that they can't fit their normal tee shot in there. Even at the Match Play there was a dogleg right… and Rory flew his draw over the trees on the inside-right corner.

57 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Is this the kind of situation where a pro would alter his normal shot shape?  Would it make sense to aim down the left and cut it towards the water?

No. They'd aim left and not let the fade cross the target line.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No. They'd aim left and not let the fade cross the target line.

Im not sure if you answered the first or second question there. :P

To clarify, in your opinion, how would a right handed pro who plays a draw play that tee shot?

[Big Lex]

I went out and played 6 holes tonight, with @iacas's pearls of wisdom in mind regarding shot shape.

Actually, I wasn't thinking about the pearls with the idea of shaping my shots, but moreseo just understanding how various setup adjustments and changes in positioning (ball position, handle position, etc.) might be affecting my ball flight. 

I addressed all my full shots with the knowledge of my typical swing path (about 4-6 degrees from the inside on simulator testing, but often with a 1-2 degree closed face), making the adjustment of having the face fractionally open at address instead of my standard square (to target) face at address. On any given shot, I wasn't sure how open to have the face, not really having a feel for exactly how "open" it had to be to either match the path or be a degree or two closed to it....but I made conservative estimates and went with it. Also, I tend to lean the handle forward to a degree, and I made an effort with the driver not to do this as much.

Wonder of wonders, I could hit straight drives, or baby curves. My typical over-draw-that-can-become-a-bad-hook was gone. Iron shots were similar, starting on my intended line much more often than usual.

What made it so nice was that I wasn't guessing and hoping regarding where the shot would go. The first drive was a bit of a leap of faith, but after that I was fine.

I also made use of my wedge distance grid to great effect. On two holes I hit the ball within two paces of pin high, and in both cases I had to make adjustments for elevation and wind, and it worked like a charm.

 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Big Lex

[mvmac]

9 hours ago, Big Lex said:

Can you give me a sense of what it means - quantitatively - to align yourself "four degrees more" to the right (or left)?

It's a bit of trial and error and figuring it out for yourself. For me it's somewhere between a little and a lot. 

7 hours ago, natureboy said:

But I'm not convinced that there is a specific advantage to having mostly draw versus mostly fade, versus mostly straight. IMO each one of those shots is going to have normal distribution type variations on either side of the intended target (pulls for a fader, pushes for a drawer). Plus courses vary hole-to-hole on the 'ideal' shot shape so there may be only a few holes net where a particular shape is a strategic advantage.

The general idea is that you have a reliable pattern, whatever that may be and "plot" your way around the course with your shot pattern.

As it relates to "ideal" shot shape per hole, I get what you're saying but most holes aren't going to be so severe to where you "have to" go against your stock shape. While the best players rely on a pattern for most of their shots, the ball isn't curving a ton.

4 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

To clarify, in your opinion, how would a right handed pro who plays a draw play that tee shot?

I assume they would aim just left of the bunker and hit their stock shot.

[saevel25]

5 hours ago, mvmac said:

It's a bit of trial and error and figuring it out for yourself. For me it's somewhere between a little and a lot.

This can get tricky with how you preserve alignment. Right now square to me feels closed because I have been hitting shots with an open stance for a couple years. For me, 4 degrees closed would probably feel like aiming 50 yards right.

5 hours ago, mvmac said:

The general idea is that you have a reliable pattern, whatever that may be and "plot" your way around the course with your shot pattern.

I think most people have a big perception that the PGA Tour players slinging around the course hitting big draws or fades at will. When you have a swing path that is a few degrees inside or out. Unless you are Rory who gets in the 5-6 degrees outward. You are just not going to curve it that much unless you are hitting a driver. They are hitting what, 5-10 yard curves at best?

I would say go around the course an imagine a 5 yard curve and see how that fits into shot shaping versus an amateur who hits a 15 yard cut with a 6 iron.

I think a good practice might be going out on the course and aiming at different spots on the green to get away from being drawn towards the pin. Even if I want to shy myself away from a tucked sucker pin placement I get caught pulling the ball back towards the pin. I got to trick myself into not focusing on the pin so much.

Jason Day's routine might work out where he looks at the spot in front of the ball he wants the ball to start over and trusts his shape will be good if he starts it there.

 

[iacas]

16 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Im not sure if you answered the first or second question there. :P

To clarify, in your opinion, how would a right handed pro who plays a draw play that tee shot?

What Mike said. Play it up the right edge and even if they get no curve, it's fine. If they get usual curve, it's left side. If they get less curve, it's middle.

[natureboy]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

What Mike said. Play it up the right edge and even if they get no curve, it's fine. If they get usual curve, it's left side. If they get less curve, it's middle.

What if they get opposite curve? I accept it's a less likely error given the intended shot shape, but still possible especially for higher HCPs with more variable swings.

[pumaAttack]

For a draw, are you aiming just the club face right of the target?  Or are you aiming your whole body right of the target and keeping the club face square to your stance?

[natureboy]

11 hours ago, mvmac said:

The general idea is that you have a reliable pattern, whatever that may be and "plot" your way around the course with your shot pattern.

As it relates to "ideal" shot shape per hole, I get what you're saying but most holes aren't going to be so severe to where you "have to" go against your stock shape. While the best players rely on a pattern for most of their shots, the ball isn't curving a ton.

That makes sense. Re. the article you posted perhaps the issue is by trying to 'zero out' some players who have grooved a natural shot shape may end up fighting that a bit. I don't think that type of player experience argues against using a Trevino-like (zeroed out) straight stock shot if it comes naturally to you. Maybe a better way to say it is to find the shot shape / approach that gives you the tightest dispersion pattern and stick with that primarily.

Edited March 31, 2016 by natureboy

[Golfingdad]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

What Mike said. Play it up the right edge and even if they get no curve, it's fine. If they get usual curve, it's left side. If they get less curve, it's middle.

That's what I figured, and that's good to know, because that's exactly what I'm currently doing there.

Just now, natureboy said:

What if they get opposite curve? I accept it's a less likely error given the intended shot shape, but still possible especially for higher HCPs with more variable swings.

That's the whole point about having a "stock" shot that they can trust.  The chances of them getting "opposite" curve and that shot are very, very slim.  Also recognize he's talking about pros.

Common sense tells me that if you trust your shot, then play it.  If it's a draw, do what Erik said, and if it's a fade, do what Erik said a few posts above.  If you don't have a pattern you can trust, then club down to whatever you can get in the fairway.

[natureboy]

54 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

That's the whole point about having a "stock" shot that they can trust.  The chances of them getting "opposite" curve and that shot are very, very slim.  Also recognize he's talking about pros.

My point is that it's the core variability / consistency in the swing that really matters.

Sticking with a 'natural' shape makes sense in promoting or ingraining a less variable swing. But any shape shot (draw, fade, straight) is going to have some variability around the intended target according to the player's individual swing variance. Even a pro with a grooved fade swing will (albeit rarely) body stall / hang back and have the hands flip (unless they manage to 'save it') and overdraw so the 'straight pull' line for a fader isn't necessarily a 100% safe margin but one of 'acceptible risk'.

Higher HCPs will be more prone to these 'outside the lines' errors.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

What if they get opposite curve? I accept it's a less likely error given the intended shot shape, but still possible especially for higher HCPs with more variable swings.

So aim farther left, as the golfer clearly has a much wider Shot Zone.

[mvmac]

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

What if they get opposite curve?

Then it's in the bunker or in the woods. You shouldn't go against your pattern just because you "might" hit a bad shot, there is no way to plan for that. You plan for your typical pattern/shot zone.

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

Sticking with a 'natural' shape makes sense in promoting or ingraining a less variable swing. But any shape shot (draw, fade, straight) is going to have some variability around the intended target according to the player's individual swing variance. Even a pro with a grooved fade swing will (albeit rarely) body stall / hang back and have the hands flip (unless they manage to 'save it') and overdraw so the 'straight pull' line for a fader isn't necessarily a 100% safe margin but one of 'acceptible risk'.

Well yeah, bad shots happen, if we could predict the shot shape every time golf would be a much easier game.

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

Higher HCPs will be more prone to these 'outside the lines' errors.

Right, which is why it's important for them to get some education on shot zones/patterns and work on mechanics and tighten up their shot zones. If a higher handicapper typically hits a 10-15 yard fade, they should stop planning to hit it straight and work on mechanics so the fade curves less and to hit the ball more solid more often.