Zeroing Out Hurting Your Game?

[saevel25]

26 minutes ago, Jakester23 said:

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

He's speaking of a hypothetical case.

He has no clue and most of us thing it's not possible for someone to obtain that level of accuracy with his theory. 

[Jakester23]

15 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

He's speaking of a hypothetical case.

He has no clue and most of us thing it's not possible for someone to obtain that level of accuracy with his theory. 

Ok good I was feeling like Mugatu for a minute there.

[Golfingdad]

52 minutes ago, Jakester23 said:

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

I don't believe he was saying he'd have more room for error, just not understanding why you'd automatically have less.  He's wondering why 15 yards on either side of your target/start line down the center is viewed differently than 30 yards all to the left of your start line down the right side of the fairway.  He's saying 30 yards is 30 yards.

I think he's asking the same questions I was asking here:

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?

And it seems like the answer is that the predictability and confidence derived from playing a shape begets a narrower cone.

As I'm understanding it, what @natureboy is pondering makes perfect sense in theory, but in practice, based on the knowledge of the instructors who've been there, it just doesn't work that way.

---

To slightly switch gears here - at what distance/club does this stop applying?  I sometimes see some small curve in my 8 irons, but beyond that, not so much.  I'm pretty much playing and planning for straight shots from about 150/9 iron and in.

[TimS65]

Here's a hypothetical example that may help understand the issues with a straight shot. Imagine a golfer with a natural straight shot whose bad shot is 30 yards but can be either left OR right (like me!). Aiming down the centre of a 30 yard wide fairway he could end up off the fairway by 15 yards on either side. 

Now imagine that golfer is a natural fader of the ball whose bad shot is either a 30 yard fade or no fade at all. If he aims down the left of the fairway his bad shots will tend to either be left of the fairway (no fade) or right of the fairway (too much fade), so he can therefore plan his strategy based on that knowledge. He'll probably hit a few draws, but very few. Whereas the straight hitter never knows which way his bad shot will go...

[saevel25]

Just now, TimS65 said:

Here's a hypothetical example that may help understand the issues with a straight shot. Imagine a golfer with a natural straight shot whose bad shot is 30 yards but can be either left OR right (like me!). Aiming down the centre of a 30 yard wide fairway he could end up off the fairway by 15 yards on either side. 

Now imagine that golfer is a natural fader of the ball whose bad shot is either a 30 yard fade or no fade at all. If he aims down the left of the fairway his bad shots will tend to either be left of the fairway (no fade) or right of the fairway (too much fade), so he can therefore plan his strategy based on that knowledge. He'll probably hit a few draws, but very few. Whereas the straight hitter never knows which way his bad shot will go...

I suspect that @natureboy will point out that even though you linked up the same 30 yard bend. That you doubled the distributed area since the 30 yard fade guy is +/- 15 yards versus your straight guy of +/- 30 yards. So they are not equivalent shot zones as @natureboy wants to compare and say that a straight shot is viable. 

[TimS65]

But that IS the problem for a straight hitter! He does have double the dispersion. I've been there - and I'm trying to correct it. I'm now tending to drive the ball with a draw and make it less likely to hit massive slices. Whereas previously it was slices and hooks it is usually only hooks now. It really does make course planning much easier being reasonably confident which direction my errors will fly!

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, TimS65 said:

But that IS the problem for a straight hitter! He does have double the dispersion.

That isn't the hypothetical situation though ;)

 

 

[Golfingdad]

14 minutes ago, TimS65 said:

Here's a hypothetical example that may help understand the issues with a straight shot. Imagine a golfer with a natural straight shot whose bad shot is 30 yards but can be either left OR right (like me!). Aiming down the centre of a 30 yard wide fairway he could end up off the fairway by 15 yards on either side. 

Now imagine that golfer is a natural fader of the ball whose bad shot is either a 30 yard fade or no fade at all. If he aims down the left of the fairway his bad shots will tend to either be left of the fairway (no fade) or right of the fairway (too much fade), so he can therefore plan his strategy based on that knowledge. He'll probably hit a few draws, but very few. Whereas the straight hitter never knows which way his bad shot will go...

This is what I learned in Nicklaus' Golf My Way book and it made perfect sense.  But it makes a pretty big assumption that the guy aiming for the straight shot will have a double the variation in his face to path ratio as the guy playing a fade.  This is an apples to oranges comparison.

I am more than willing to believe the pros here when they say it's better to play one shape (in practice, I strive for this, and it's benefitted me as well), but it's not something that seems as straightforward on paper as a lot of the other stuff - especially to the geeks here that are into science and such. :P

[TimS65]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That isn't the hypothetical situation though ;)

 

 

Here. True!

Grrrr auto spell checker - that was meant to be "hehe" not here!!!

[Golfingdad]

8 minutes ago, TimS65 said:

But that IS the problem for a straight hitter! He does have double the dispersion. I've been there - and I'm trying to correct it. I'm now tending to drive the ball with a draw and make it less likely to hit massive slices. Whereas previously it was slices and hooks it is usually only hooks now. It really does make course planning much easier being reasonably confident which direction my errors will fly!

 

6 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That isn't the hypothetical situation though ;)

Exactly (I'm completely ignoring the tone of your conversation, mind you).

It's not a hypothetical, it's an anecdote.  He's not talking about "A" straight hitter, he's talking about one specific straight hitter.  

[natureboy]

5 hours ago, Jakester23 said:

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

There isn't necessarily any more, but not any less either.

Let's take two golfers with similar consistency / skill (variance in shot dispersion from intended target a la the Trackman Combine). One plays for a straight shot and for argument's sake hits 95% within 15 yards left and right of the intended target (a normal distribution of face/path alignment errors from 'perfect'). He aims for the center of the flat fairway and lands ~ 95% in the fairway. Another player has a stock 5 yard draw and hit 95% of his shots within 15 yards left and right of the intended target (similar face/path consistency). He is going to aim 5 yards right (if a righty) of fairway center in order to get the same number of fairway hits. If the hole strategy favors avoiding trouble on one side, they will both shift their target by the same amount to steer clear.

It's the dispersion of your shot pattern on the ground that matters not how you got there. That's assuming there is room to play your shape (see below) to the preferred target, though it would be rare if this was an issue.

There may be some physical and psychological reasons why a shape is easier to hit to a tighter pattern around a target given the same talent and experience, but I haven't seen any conclusive proof or study.

What seems to be happening IMO is that if you already have a long-ingrained stock shape and try to change your swing, your variance around the target is very likely to increase - at least short-term. No one is really looking at brand new or relatively new golfers with this to see if it's easier to get a tight pattern by attempting to send your ball to the target by aiming along a curved path (with variance left and right due to swing errors) versus aiming along a straight path (with variance left and right due to similar swing errors). IMO, attempting to hit 'straight' is not 'wrong' unless it results in a significantly wider shot pattern that you are not able to improve with practice. Use whatever approach that gives lower variance around the intended target for that player.

If playing a 'shape' as your stock is ingrained in golf instruction then those players who get taught golf will be told to develop a stock shape. Then when they try to change it, their dispersion will increase because you are changing a long-ingrained swing. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy and why I think Trevino is a potentially interesting counter-example.

4 hours ago, saevel25 said:

He's speaking of a hypothetical case.

Just because you and I don't play holes like that doesn't mean they don't exist.

When Hogan was playing a low hook for extra distance he commented that when he was overdoing it (extreme shape) he was running out of room to play it. This was probably partly tongue-in-cheek, but also partly serious. Think of some of the holes for the way back pro tees that are in long, narrow chutes of trees that are also aligned off-center from the fairway on a slight dogleg. I've seen a few like this, but it does seem rare.

Edited April 6, 2016 by natureboy

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

But it makes a pretty big assumption that the guy aiming for the straight shot will have a double the variation in his face to path ratio as the guy playing a fade.

I think it's a huge assumption. Every player has variation left, right and long, short of their intended target. It's how tight to the intended target your ball ends up that measures skill as with the Trackman Combine.

I'm open minded that there is some other factor that makes a stock shape preferable. I just haven't seen convincing evidence from folks who haven't already grooved a stock shape for years and years. I'm not advocating they change an already good swing just that it may not be a bad idea to start out in golf attempting to learn to aim your random shotgun shot pattern along a straight path versus a curved one. Trevino's new pattern was a shift from a stock draw/hook shape, but he thinks it made him a better golfer.

[saevel25]

33 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Trevino's new pattern was a shift from a stock draw/hook shape, but he thinks it made him a better golfer.

Well Hogan hit a hook for a long time and battled it. That is why his book is all about slicing the ball so he didn't hook the ball. He wanted to take left out of play completely. 

 

[newtogolf]

I'd think on tee shots, shot shape helps because you can tee off from whichever side gives you the most room to execute your shot and hit away from trouble.  

[natureboy]

4 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I'd think on tee shots, shot shape helps because you can tee off from whichever side gives you the most room to execute your shot and hit away from trouble.  

You can hit away from trouble if your intended shot is straight too - either way you plan for your expected shot dispersion around the intended target.

[SavvySwede]

52 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I think it's a huge assumption. Every player has variation left, right and long, short of their intended target. It's how tight to the intended target your ball ends up that measures skill as with the Trackman Combine.

I'm open minded that there is some other factor that makes a stock shape preferable. I just haven't seen convincing evidence from folks who haven't already grooved a stock shape for years and years. I'm not advocating they change an already good swing just that it may not be a bad idea to start out in golf attempting to learn to aim your random shotgun shot pattern along a straight path versus a curved one. Trevino's new pattern was a shift from a stock draw/hook shape, but he thinks it made him a better golfer.

The ball bounces in the same direction with a shaped shot. That's a lot more predictable when hitting into targets with slopes that aren't flat.

[Big Lex]

4 hours ago, TimS65 said:

But that IS the problem for a straight hitter! He does have double the dispersion. I've been there - and I'm trying to correct it. I'm now tending to drive the ball with a draw and make it less likely to hit massive slices. Whereas previously it was slices and hooks it is usually only hooks now. It really does make course planning much easier being reasonably confident which direction my errors will fly!

Who is to say that you can't have double dispersion as the error distribution from a fade (or draw) pattern? Why is it any easier to hit a consistent fade than a consistent straight shot? The hypothetical example also fails because it assumes it's possible to miss the starting line in both directions in a straight pattern, but assumes that in a fade pattern there is zero error in the starting line. If you can learn to hit your starting line every time with a fade, you can also learn to do it with  a straight ball. I think Jack N's argument in his book is a logical fallacy. JMHO

[natureboy]

26 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

The ball bounces in the same direction with a shaped shot. That's a lot more predictable when hitting into targets with slopes that aren't flat.

I think that argument in favor of shape seems to have merit. I don't think it makes it completely predictable though as landing on a ridge or a microslope will affect the first bounce and spin release more than the overall green slope and whether you hit or miss those is somewhat random, but on average it makes sense.

Now does playing a stock shape 95% of the time give you an advantage on accuracy if 50% of the slopes act as effective backstops to your shape and 50% act as effective downslopes?