Zeroing Out Hurting Your Game?

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Hardspoon said:

I'm curious - is there a technical/mechanical reason for the tighter dispersion?  Or is this just observational? 

No real technical reason (there is one but it's weak). More to do with psychology, how we play, etc. Patterns are more predictable.

[mvmac]

9 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I do question, though, why it's necessarily a big deal if the ball is sometimes curving away from the target.  If you plan for a 8 yard push draw and draw it 4 yards and I try to hit it straight and fade it 4 yards, we're both in the same boat.  Who cares how we got there?

I think "on paper" that may be fine but when we're out on the course we know where out target is and we want to instinctually hit our ball towards it so it makes sense from a management and confidence standpoint to try and curve the ball towards a target. In your example the push-draw guy has a reliable pattern that he can utilize over the entire round. The guy aiming it straight is hoping his ball doesn't curve too far left or right of the target, it's just not as predictable.

[Golfingdad]

9 hours ago, mvmac said:

The guy aiming it straight is hoping his ball doesn't curve too far left or right of the target, it's just not as predictable.

I think this is where it gets confusing. Isn't the guy who plays the draw also HOPING that it doesn't draw too little or too much? I guess what I'm wondering is: if player A has a certain amount of clubface control that always stays right of his rightward path, why isn't it possible for player B to have the same amount of clubface control that hovers on either side of his path?

I definitely get it from the confidence standpoint, though, and I'm thinking that might be the bigger factor here.  The confidence actually helps create the predictability.

Id still lean towards hitting whatever "brung ya" though.  Some will probably derive more confidence from just hitting their shot, even if that means a little curve either way, than trying to FORCE one or the other.  But striving to improve to the point that one or the other becomes natural also makes a lot of sense. :)

 

[TimS65]

27 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I think this is where it gets confusing. Isn't the guy who plays the draw also HOPING that it doesn't draw too little or too much? I guess what I'm wondering is: if player A has a certain amount of clubface control that always stays right of his rightward path, why isn't it possible for player B to have the same amount of clubface control that hovers on either side of his path?

I definitely get it from the confidence standpoint, though, and I'm thinking that might be the bigger factor here.  The confidence actually helps create the predictability.

Id still lean towards hitting whatever "brung ya" though.  Some will probably derive more confidence from just hitting their shot, even if that means a little curve either way, than trying to FORCE one or the other.  But striving to improve to the point that one or the other becomes natural also makes a lot of sense. :)

 

I've had the problem of a naturally straight shot. The problem is that the bad shots can be left OR right, which makes course management difficult when trying to avoid trouble. At least if I had a consistent left or right error, I'd know where to aim to avoid water hazrards etc.

[natureboy]

23 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Yes, in the realm of hypothetical it is possible. That does not mean it's actually applicable to golf. 

I think that Trevino's self description as 'about dead straight' and Henrik Stenson's description by announcers as 'very straight' means it is. Also Hogan and Nicklaus had very slight cuts as their primary shape. And if shape itself was an advantage, why would the majority of pros have very small curves?

23 hours ago, colin007 said:

@natureboy, why are you hung up on hitting it straight? Trying to do that would be so much harder than just sticking with a pattern/shape and just working in narrowing your cone. It's just easier to hit a shape. 

I'm not hung up on it, I just think that the experience of someone trying to change a long-ingrained swing that has an inherent stock shape to try to hit straight and getting worse results does not de-facto invalidate another player building their initial (non-ingrained) swing around a 'straight' pattern. It may be easier for you and many others to hit a shape, but may not be for others. May have a lot to do with basic setup choices or preferences like hitting all shots with a square stance.

I agree that narrowing the cone is the fundamental thing to aim for.

23 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I actually agree with you here.  If it's all about getting as close to the hole as possible then, naturally, anything that gives tighter dispersion is better.

Thank you.

Quote

 The question would then become, though, how would you be able to achieve that?  And to that, I think @saevel25 is right about it not really being viable.  If a golfer has the ability to get "X" dispersion when playing a draw or a fade, then why would that same golfer, all of a sudden magically be able to have "X-Y" dispersion when trying to "zero out" and hit it straight?  I believe the answer is that he wouldn't.

If your already established shape is draw or fade, I can see that messing with it may be likely to increase your shot dispersion around the target. But if your 'natural' or grooved shot shape is about straight with some normal expected variance on the fade and draw side, I don't see it any more likely that trying to exclusively favor one shape or the other would magically give you a tighter dispersion either. Trevino worked his 'dead straight' pattern out of the dirt largely teaching himself the game and he was very consistent and accurate with it.

Quote

I do question, though, why it's necessarily a big deal if the ball is sometimes curving away from the target.  If you plan for a 8 yard push draw and draw it 4 yards and I try to hit it straight and fade it 4 yards, we're both in the same boat.  Who cares how we got there?

That's all I'm saying.

22 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Contrary to what some of the others have said, I agree completely with this.  If you get the best results by trying to hit it dead straight, then that's the best choice for you.

Thank you.

Quote

However, even the finest players throughout the history of golf have found that they could get better results by intentionally playing some kind of curving shot.  I know that's the case for me, and I'm far from one of the finest players. 

But a great many of these players adopted early on the received wisdom of playing primarily either draw or fade - very often playing from a square stance on all shots. Trevino is a counter-example who didn't follow 'standard' instruction of his day and developed a great swing and shot pattern with a non-traditional approach.

I do agree that messing with an effective swing that is long-ingrained is likely to lead to consistency issues (except for maybe examples of Hogan and Tiger). I just don't think that means you have to make it an either / or choice between draw or fade if you are starting out or you decide to re-construct a swing that isn't working to your satisfaction. I think 'straight' (with expected normal variance around the intended target) is an equally viable option. I just haven't seen good evidence that building a swing around "straight" as your intended stock is necessarily bad.

Edited April 2, 2016 by natureboy

[colin007]

5 hours ago, natureboy said:

I just haven't seen good evidence that building a swing around "straight" as your intended stock is necessarily bad.

I think the smarter, more knowledgeable guys here would say it's a lot harder, that's all.

And I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Trevino hit a push-fade, despite what he might have self-assessed.

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, colin007 said:

I think the smarter, more knowledgeable guys here would say it's a lot harder, that's all.

I don't see any inherent reason it should be so. Golfers miss on both sides of their intended target. These kind of random face / path errors are inherent to the golf swing. Better players just have a smaller variance and a tighter resulting shot pattern. If having a shape bias in and of itself is a good thing, why is a large shape bias (big swing off & back to target) relatively rare among the pros?

I do think it could be harder to hit straight if you don't alter your stance depending on the club, but having a constant stance is a golf instruction setup preference that doesn't necessarily have any proof of being 'better' although perhaps a bit simpler to learn at first. It's certainly easier to teach.

Any statistical or subjective look at players attempting to alter a swing ingrained over many, many years is only proof that altering an ingrained swing will lead to a temporary (perhaps permanent) regression in shot dispersion. But isn't that regression an expected part of learning any new swing pattern? If you want to prove having either a draw or fade is 'better' start with a bunch of raw golfers, then compare the fade, draw, or straight groups.

Quote

And I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Trevino hit a push-fade, despite what he might have self-assessed.

Yes, Every golf commentator I've ever heard and everything I've ever read about Trevino said he played a fade. That's why it was so memorable when I saw the video of him speaking and saying "I was about dead straight". Given what I had been seeing in 'zeroing out' videos to hit straight with a negative AoA his setup made so much more sense.

Commentators are often lazy and pass on lots of received wisdom like 'Drive for show'. Likely to them any ball that wasn't drawing was to their 'one side of the course' perspective, a fade. Plus if he was 'about dead straight' he would have a roughly equal number of errors on either side of straight so confirmation bias on the part of an observer would find enough 'fade' examples to satisfy their assumption of his stock shot. Did they see more shots directly from the ball-target line to the target than the man who struck the ball?

I'll take a multiple Major winner's own words when he describes what his intended target and expected stock ball flight shape was. A thorough understanding of his own swing and shot dispersion was crucial to his success. Trevino was not a 'stupid monkey' either. He didn't have a coach. He was more of the school of 'if you can beat me, I'll take a lesson from you'.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703730804576321120772595378

Edited April 3, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

17 hours ago, natureboy said:

I think that Trevino's self description as 'about dead straight' and Henrik Stenson's description by announcers as 'very straight' means it is. Also Hogan and Nicklaus had very slight cuts as their primary shape. And if shape itself was an advantage, why would the majority of pros have very small curves?

You're confusing things here.

Hogan and Nicklaus had slight cuts. Trevino had a slightly bigger cut. But they all had a cut, and they hit that shot 95% of the time. You don't get to claim "if shape itself is an advantage, why would they have small curves?"

Nobody has said BIG curves are the advantage. I've likely specifically said the opposite. Better players have smaller curves. But Nicklaus can probably count on one hand the number of draws he hit when playing for a fade. Trevino too. Hogan too.

They played a shape because it was more predictable.

It's a straw man and disingenuous of you to "shape" that into saying they were trying to play a straight shot and everyone else is arguing for bigger curves. A curve is still a curve, and those three almost always hit fades.

17 hours ago, natureboy said:

I'm not hung up on it, I just think that the experience of someone trying to change a long-ingrained swing that has an inherent stock shape to try to hit straight and getting worse results does not de-facto invalidate another player building their initial (non-ingrained) swing around a 'straight' pattern. It may be easier for you and many others to hit a shape, but may not be for others. May have a lot to do with basic setup choices or preferences like hitting all shots with a square stance.

See, in saying things like this, you've tried to set this up in such a way that you can't ever test it. Because you'll never find enough people taught to hit it "straight" as a de facto thing without any previous ingrained shape.

Theoretically, yeah, this all "works" in a theoretical sense, but human begins are not robots, and they have tendencies. Playing to those tendencies is one of the reasons (the psychological effects of seeing your ball curving away from the target being another) why playing a shape is often better.

Golfers, in my experience, tend to be wired a certain way - to hit a shot that feels most natural to them. I see absolutely no reason to go against that tendency, especially when the most you can only theoretically promise is "the same" consistency.

17 hours ago, natureboy said:

If your already established shape is draw or fade, I can see that messing with it may be likely to increase your shot dispersion around the target. But if your 'natural' or grooved shot shape is about straight with some normal expected variance on the fade and draw side, I don't see it any more likely that trying to exclusively favor one shape or the other would magically give you a tighter dispersion either. Trevino worked his 'dead straight' pattern out of the dirt largely teaching himself the game and he was very consistent and accurate with it.

Trevino's shape was not straight. He played a reasonably sized cut for the PGA Tour at the time. It wasn't Paul Goydos, but it wasn't Moe Norman, either.

Furthermore, let's not imbue Lee Trevino with some magical accuracy. I would wager money that a number of today's PGA Tour pros are just as or more accurate as Lee Trevino.

You're setting up a weak argument: in trying to leave the realm of the theoretical, you're stretching some truths or at the very least imbuing people with properties that require an assumption of truth in spite of no real evidence.

17 hours ago, natureboy said:

But a great many of these players adopted early on the received wisdom of playing primarily either draw or fade - very often playing from a square stance on all shots. Trevino is a counter-example who didn't follow 'standard' instruction of his day and developed a great swing and shot pattern with a non-traditional approach.

What's a player's stance got to do with anything? You can draw it from an open stance, fade it from an open stance, and do all of those from closed or square stances, too.

17 hours ago, natureboy said:

I just don't think that means you have to make it an either / or choice between draw or fade if you are starting out or you decide to re-construct a swing that isn't working to your satisfaction. I think 'straight' (with expected normal variance around the intended target) is an equally viable option. I just haven't seen good evidence that building a swing around "straight" as your intended stock is necessarily bad.

Again, this all sounds great in theory. It tends to fall apart when the rubber meets the road. Players tend to have a tendency, and players tend to like to see the ball curving toward the flag.

A shot that is curving toward the flag and finishes 20 feet away is seen as a "better" shot than a shot which starts at the flag and curves away, even if it finishes 20 feet away, too. I saw data on this one time, though I can't place it, and quick Googling hasn't turned up much (though I'm at a tournament right now so "quick" was very quick). But I'd be willing to wager that re-conducting this type of test would yield the same results: players like to see a ball curving toward the target, not away from it.

9 hours ago, natureboy said:

I don't see any inherent reason it should be so. Golfers miss on both sides of their intended target. These kind of random face / path errors are inherent to the golf swing. Better players just have a smaller variance and a tighter resulting shot pattern. If having a shape bias in and of itself is a good thing, why is a large shape bias (big swing off & back to target) relatively rare among the pros?

Who is arguing for a large shape bias? A straw man.

9 hours ago, natureboy said:

Any statistical or subjective look at players attempting to alter a swing ingrained over many, many years is only proof that altering an ingrained swing will lead to a temporary (perhaps permanent) regression in shot dispersion. But isn't that regression an expected part of learning any new swing pattern? If you want to prove having either a draw or fade is 'better' start with a bunch of raw golfers, then compare the fade, draw, or straight groups.

You're just giving yourself the out here in saying that we can't ever know because players grow up playing a shape…

But players don't have to grow up playing a shape. Unless you think there's some weird conspiracy theory out there among instructors, even among those who have not had instructors. Heck, Bubba Watson has won majors and didn't really get much instruction, and yet he plays the BIGGEST curves out there.

If playing a straight shot was inherently better, given the competitive nature of the PGA Tour, we'd start to see more and more and more and more and more straight hitters entering the game. We aren't. We're seeing the same thing as always: players playing their small curve patterns.

 

9 hours ago, natureboy said:

Yes, Every golf commentator I've ever heard and everything I've ever read about Trevino said he played a fade. That's why it was so memorable when I saw the video of him speaking and saying "I was about dead straight". Given what I had been seeing in 'zeroing out' videos to hit straight with a negative AoA his setup made so much more sense.

You can't hit down that you "zero out" a stance that's 20° open. Heck, to "zero that out" if you swung parallel to your feet, you'd have to hit about 40° down with your 6I. Consider how stupid that sounds. In truth, Lee played a fade (it wasn't "dead straight") because relative to his feet he swung out, and down, but not enough to make the path square to or right of his target line.

9 hours ago, natureboy said:

Commentators are often lazy and pass on lots of received wisdom like 'Drive for show'. Likely to them any ball that wasn't drawing was to their 'one side of the course' perspective, a fade.

Seriously?

Lee Trevino played a fade. I've heard it from Lee, I've heard it from people who played with him, I've heard it from instructors who worked with him (not necessarily on his swing). I've seen it myself in Champions Tour events, in person.

Lee played a fade.

9 hours ago, natureboy said:

Did they see more shots directly from the ball-target line to the target than the man who struck the ball?

Lee wasn't on the ball-target line either. He was left of it. Lee Trevino played a fade.

9 hours ago, natureboy said:

I'll take a multiple Major winner's own words when he describes what his intended target and expected stock ball flight shape was.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204482304574220271513874890

There's Lee, in his own words, talking about his fade. His "you can talk to a fade, but a hook won't listen" line is pretty famous, too. Lee played a fade. You're not going to get anywhere with me or anyone who played golf with Lee, worked with Lee, etc. trying to say otherwise.

Like any good player it wasn't a big fade, but the ball faded just about every time.

9 hours ago, natureboy said:

Trevino was not a 'stupid monkey' either. He didn't have a coach. He was more of the school of 'if you can beat me, I'll take a lesson from you'.

And yet Jack Nicklaus had an instructor and played better golf than Lee. And Tiger Woods has had even MORE instruction and played even better golf than possibly both of them, but definitely better than Trevino, and arguably as good as or better than Nicklaus.

So at this point you're not even on topic (because the topic is not "did Lee Trevino play a fade…" - and if that was the topic, you'd be on the losing side, not to mention that you're crediting him with accuracy without any verification or context). You can go back to discussing the theoretical "straight hitting" guy, but I've countered that above and others have, too. We are humans, not theoretical robots, so I think you're bound to fail where the rubber meets the road - or the subjects become flesh and blood.

And stop erecting straw men:

On August 14, 2012 at 2:04 PM, iacas said:

95% of the shots a pro plays (Tiger Woods may be one of a group of very small exceptions, and even he isn't as different as many think) are their stock shot. They don't curve much, but if a player is a drawer of the golf ball, 95% of their shots draw. It's the most reliable, dependable way to play - with a pattern.

I specifically said small curves in the first post of this thread.

[mvmac]

On 4/2/2016 at 8:15 AM, Golfingdad said:

Isn't the guy who plays the draw also HOPING that it doesn't draw too little or too much? I guess what I'm wondering is: if player A has a certain amount of clubface control that always stays right of his rightward path, why isn't it possible for player B to have the same amount of clubface control that hovers on either side of his path?

With player A the ball is always curving in one direction (or most of the time), it's predictable. The other guy isn't as predictable because the ball could curve left or right.

6 hours ago, iacas said:

Nobody has said BIG curves are the advantage. I've likely specifically said the opposite. Better players have smaller curves. But Nicklaus can probably count on one hand the number of draws he hit when playing for a fade. Trevino too. Hogan too.

Yeah I pointed that out as well in one of my recent posts.

6 hours ago, iacas said:

If playing a straight shot was inherently better, given the competitive nature of the PGA Tour, we'd start to see more and more and more and more and more straight hitters entering the game. We aren't. We're seeing the same thing as always: players playing their small curve patterns.

Exactly. If straight was a better pattern (or achievable) they would have figured it out by now.

[natureboy]

8 hours ago, iacas said:

Heck, to "zero that out" if you swung parallel to your feet, you'd have to hit about 40° down with your 6I. Consider how stupid that sounds. In truth, Lee played a fade (it wasn't "dead straight") because relative to his feet he swung out, and down, but not enough to make the path square to or right of his target line.

I didn't say Trevino swung parallel to his stance, just that his open stance likely helped facilitate somewhat of a 'zeroing out' approach to the ball.

8 hours ago, iacas said:

Lee Trevino played a fade. I've heard it from Lee, I've heard it from people who played with him, I've heard it from instructors who worked with him (not necessarily on his swing). I've seen it myself in Champions Tour events, in person.

Since you have that access, I encourage you to ask him just for curiosity's sake if he ever said that 'he was about dead straight'.

8 hours ago, iacas said:

Lee wasn't on the ball-target line either. He was left of it.

His eyes were over it and he knew where he intended / expected the ball to go and it wasn't along his stance line.

8 hours ago, iacas said:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204482304574220271513874890

There's Lee, in his own words, talking about his fade. His "you can talk to a fade, but a hook won't listen" line is pretty famous, too. Lee played a fade. You're not going to get anywhere with me or anyone who played golf with Lee, worked with Lee, etc. trying to say otherwise.

I find his description of what a 'fade' from a different video is interesting. He describes Hogan's ball as moving from left to right, but said "I couldn't do that,...The only way I could hit a fade was to aim to left field, swing to right field, and the ball goes to center field." He described his stock shot as a 'block' (relative to his open stance). It sounds to me like he had an expectation of a ball flight that was 'straight up the middle'.

Re. Bubba he curves it a lot both ways doesn't he? I've heard a big cut is his predominant shot shape, but does he go to that shape the same 90-95% of other tour pros, the time or is he working his shots both directions to take advantage of fairway run-outs and green slopes?

[mvmac]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

I didn't say Trevino swung parallel to his stance, just that his open stance likely helped facilitate somewhat of a 'zeroing out' approach to the ball.

It didn't, the ball still curved left to right. He didn't create create enough "down" to offset how far left he aimed, which he did quite a bit.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

Re. Bubba he curves it a lot both ways doesn't he? I've heard a big cut is his predominant shot shape, but does he go to that shape the same 90-95% of other tour pros, the time or is he working his shots both directions to take advantage of fairway run-outs and green slopes?

From watching him in person several times (and obviously watching him on TV) I'd say about 90% of his tee shots are curving right to left. Some are tight curves and some are big (10+ yards). Tough to say what the percentage is with his approach shots but he typically fades it more than he draws it.

[colin007]

I love how Bubba's "big" curves are ten yards...mines are fifty +, three fairways over...lol....

[mdl]

On 4/2/2016 at 8:15 AM, Golfingdad said:

I think this is where it gets confusing. Isn't the guy who plays the draw also HOPING that it doesn't draw too little or too much? I guess what I'm wondering is: if player A has a certain amount of clubface control that always stays right of his rightward path, why isn't it possible for player B to have the same amount of clubface control that hovers on either side of his path?

I definitely get it from the confidence standpoint, though, and I'm thinking that might be the bigger factor here.  The confidence actually helps create the predictability.

Id still lean towards hitting whatever "brung ya" though.  Some will probably derive more confidence from just hitting their shot, even if that means a little curve either way, than trying to FORCE one or the other.  But striving to improve to the point that one or the other becomes natural also makes a lot of sense. :)

 

For me, little of the positive psych effect is the "curve it reliably towards the target" thing.  I mean, since I've gone to trying to purposefully hit a draw from trying to hit it straight and fighting a push-fade, more days than not my miss is an over-draw, so I'm watching my ball curve away from the target for the majority of the flight path on most misses anyway.

The confidence/psych reinforcement piece for me is more the confidence that comes from at least having shaped the ball the way I meant to.  Sure, if I hit a push with a baby draw and miss right, or hit a small push with a big draw and miss left, I still might have missed my target by a lot.  But at least directionally I made the ball do what I wanted.  It started right of my target and curved left.

I've found that to be surprisingly satisfying psychologically compared to always trying to hit it "basically" straight and having almost of all of even my best shots not be 100% straight, so not totally fitting the shot pattern I was going for.

[dchoye]

I personally find it easier to curve the ball than trying to hit it straight. 

Off the curve shots I rather draw it than try to fade it just cause it feels like I can draw the ball to my target.  When I try to fade I can't really fade it to my target it feels more like I trying to fade away from my target. 

Sometimes I accidentally hit a straight shot but it's usually cause I push it to the right and not draw. 

Pulls can happen too.  

[natureboy]

Quote

The toughest shot in golf is one that is perfectly straight. It’s tough to execute physically because so many things must be exactly right at impact. It’s tough strategically because it reduces the target area-If you aim at the center of the fairway, then hit a slice or a hook, you have only half the fairway to play with, whereas if you aim, say down the left side and play for a deliberate fade, you have almost the width of the fairway is at your disposal if you overdo it.

I respect Jack Nicklaus' golf knowledge, but his argument bolded in the quote above (from the Trackman blog article used in the 'Is Zeroing Out Hurting Your Scorecard') is flawed.

No one who has a shape preference / tendency is aiming for the middle of the fairway if their intent is to hit the middle of the fairway. Their start line will be off-center depending on their expected or intended amount of curve - exactly as he describes in the next sentence. It is equally hard to hit the precise amount of draw or fade to pull off a shot exactly as intended. If that were not the case holes in one and hole-out eagles would be less rare.

Some hole layouts will limit how much room a player has to start right or left and work the ball back to the target and that can constrain your start lines if you tend to use a lot of shape. This is likely why Kenny Perry's long term rough percentage favors the left side. With a large draw, he just didn't have as much room on dogleg right holes to center his expected pattern on the fairway, or maybe (less likely IMO) it was strategic choice in that favoring the left side with his intended landing target assured him of more room to work a large draw iron or wood approach shot if the holes tended to get more narrow (ran out of room on the right) closer to the green.

Edited April 6, 2016 by natureboy

[TimS65]

@natureboy I think you misunderstood the Jack Nicholas comment. That is exactly what he was saying. If you aim dead straight down the centre but ACCIDENTALLY over draw or fade the shot, you only have half the fairway each side to find. Whereas if you aim down one side of the fairway with either a fade or draw you have the whole width of the fairway to aim at.

[natureboy]

1 minute ago, TimS65 said:

@natureboy I think you misunderstood the Jack Nicholas comment. That is exactly what he was saying. If you aim dead straight down the centre but ACCIDENTALLY over draw or fade the shot, you only have half the fairway each side to find. Whereas if you aim down one side of the fairway with either a fade or draw you have the whole width of the fairway to aim at.

No, I didn't misunderstand it. He was arguing that it's tougher to hit your target with a straight intention than with a shape intention. If you aim down the center of the fairway with an expected ~ 15 yard variance left and right then you also have the whole fairway to play with.

All shots will have variance around the 'perfectly executed' intention. Even if you intend to fade it you will occasionally hit straight pulls and maybe even draw it. The narrowness / consistency of your dispersion pattern is what matters to being in the short grass and avoiding penalties.

[Jakester23]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

No, I didn't misunderstand it. He was arguing that it's tougher to hit your target with a straight intention than with a shape intention. If you aim down the center of the fairway with an expected ~ 15 yard variance left and right then you also have the whole fairway to play with.

All shots will have variance around the 'perfectly executed' intention. Even if you intend to fade it you will occasionally hit straight pulls and maybe even draw it. The narrowness / consistency of your dispersion pattern is what matters to being in the short grass and avoiding penalties.

How is there more room for error with a straight shot then a shaped one?