Mac O'Grady's Ballstriking

[Yff Theos]

4 hours ago, MacDutch said:

Bingo! 

In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,^[1]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,^[3] often for the troll's amusement.

Do I start quarrels? I do not. I usually defend my point of view being roughly attacked.

Do I upset people? Maybe apart from the accolities unable to run a discussion, I do not.

Do I post inflammatory,extraneous or off-topic messages? I do not think so. I asked politely on another thread where can I open the discussion about ballstriking so that I am not off-topic.

Do I have intents of provoking readers into an emotional response? I do not think so. I am usually being provoked; your action is the best example of this.

Am I amused reading responses? No, I am rather sad. It is people like you who are amused by making other sad or nervous, as it can be seen for instance by your emoticons.

Ergo: you are much closer to be a troll, MacDutch.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Yff Theos
grammar

[Yff Theos]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

You've not even read the main book that discusses this.

Sorry, but reading and understanding Every Shot Counts,

Let me ask simply: is the book the oracle in the topic of the ballstriking importance? What is so extraordinary in this book? Is the content of the book objective?

Most probably I could have found also some books that glorify putting skills and its importance. You know, point of view depends on who is writing a book.

10 hours ago, iacas said:

Ultimately, ballstriking matters significantly more than putting or the short game in sustained success on the PGA Tour.

Yes, it does. But there can be some exceptions (that prove the rule) in the history of golf and I believe Mac or Knudsen were such.

 

10 hours ago, iacas said:

I could hit every shot inside of 50 yards for a PGA Tour player, as a +1, and we'd do well.

Have you ever putt on PGA tour greens?

Edited January 4, 2018 by Yff Theos
grammar

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

Let me ask simply: is the book the oracle in the topic of the ballstriking importance? What is so extraordinary in this book? Is the content of the book objective?

Every Shot Counts statistically defines the importance of each aspect of the game of golf. They found some conclusions that are counter to the standard golfing mantras.

What is extraordinary? Wouldn't you like to know what is more important?

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

Most probably I could have found also some books that glorify putting skills and its importance

Yea, look at Dave Pelz. He is routinely incorrect.

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

You know, point of view depends on who is writing a book.

A point of view can be right or wrong. The Strokes Gained stat metric is correct.

1 hour ago, Yff Theos said:

Have you ever putt on PGA tour greens?

If you want to go down the line that PGA Tour greens are hard to putt, that is false.

Quote

Perhaps partly in reaction to the quickness of the putting surfaces that wreaked havoc when high winds hit the Open Championship last year at St. Andrews – forcing a suspension of play on Saturday – the greens at Royal Troon have been running under 10 on the Stimpmeter. By contrast, the famously fast greens at Oakmont Country Club exceeded 14. Most PGA Tour stops are in the vicinity of 12.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/by-major-championship-standards-troons-green-speeds-border-on-glacial

A 12 STIMP is not scary fast.

Here is why putting on PGA Tour greens would benefit golfers.

1. They are in perfect condition
2. Faster greens roll truer
3. You need less of a putting stroke, which is easier to make.

 

[Yff Theos]

13 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Every Shot Counts statistically defines the importance of each aspect of the game of golf. They found some conclusions that are counter to the standard golfing mantras.

What is extraordinary? Wouldn't you like to know what is more important?

Yes, I would. Where can I buy the book? Who is the author and what does he base his conclusions on ?

 

15 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yea, look at Dave Pelz. He is routinely incorrect.

Why do you say this? I am not a huge fan of Pelz myself but he is widely regarded as the expert by knowledgable people.

 

16 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

If you want to go down the line that PGA Tour greens are hard to putt, that is false.

Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to say. I putted myself on greens just after European Tour events and they were much faster than usually, hence tougher.

 

18 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

A 12 STIMP is not scary fast.

Well, I think it is very fast.

 

18 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Here is why putting on PGA Tour greens would benefit golfers.

1. They are in perfect condition
2. Faster greens roll truer
3. You need less of a putting stroke, which is easier to make.

Well, I can buy your arguments but I am afraid tour greens require practice. I cannot imagine an amateur (even single digit and a good putter) who putts usually on 8 stimp greens can putt well on these greens ad hoc.

[saevel25]

23 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes, I would. Where can I buy the book?

http://amzn.to/2EXQoQb

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Do I post inflammatory,extraneous or off-topic messages? I do not think so. I asked politely on another thread where can I open the discussion about ballstriking so that I am not off-topic.

You were given multiple warnings for being off-topic!!! We had to move a bunch of posts to another topic they were so off-topic and you were so reluctant to get back TO the topic. Man, have some self awareness!

This discussion of whether you're a troll is, you guessed it… . And while I recognize that you didn't start it, you perpetuated it. I responded only to point out the simple fact above. I probably could have responded "yes" to the other questions, too, but it's off topic, so I'd rather not.

To all: further discussion of this is now, clearly, off topic. Do not.

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Let me ask simply: is the book the oracle in the topic of the ballstriking importance? What is so extraordinary in this book? Is the content of the book objective?

To the last question, yes. To the others… you shouldn't have to ask these questions. The info in that book or Rich Hunt's work is the table stakes. I said earlier on you're arguing from a position of extreme ignorance. You still are. You literally don't know what's IN the book(s).

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Most probably I could have found also some books that glorify putting skills and its importance. You know, point of view depends on who is writing a book.

It's not really a point of view. It's not an opinion-based book. Again, you'd know this if you had read it…

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes, it does. But there can be some exceptions (that prove the rule) in the history of golf and I believe Mac or Knudsen were such.

Cool. I don't. Moving on.

2 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Have you ever putt on PGA tour greens?

Multiple times per year. They're not that special.

43 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes, I would. Where can I buy the book? Who is the author and what does he base his conclusions on ?

My goodness, man - do the most basic of Google searches.

43 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Why do you say this? I am not a huge fan of Pelz myself but he is widely regarded as the expert by knowledgable people.

His use of statistics is bad.

Understandable, since he teaches the short game and putting he wants to emphasize those two. But bad.

43 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Yes, this is exactly what I wanted to say. I putted myself on greens just after European Tour events and they were much faster than usually, hence tougher.

Actually decent players putt better on faster greens. They're truer and require shorter strokes, less error-prone strokes.

43 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Well, I think it is very fast.

My indoor putting green at Golf Evolution gets above 12 in the winter. It's not that fast.

43 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Well, I can buy your arguments but I am afraid tour greens require practice. I cannot imagine an amateur (even single digit and a good putter) who putts usually on 8 stimp greens can putt well on these greens ad hoc.

The greens I play on regularly stimp at 10-13. My college kids play 9-13. My daughter, age 15 (only recently), only ever plays a stimp 8 green if it's rained a lot recently and they haven't had a chance to mow. Most of her rounds are on courses 9-13 as well.

There are studies which show that, given time to acclimate (about half an hour - we're not talking days or weeks), bogey golfers and better putt better on stimp 12 greens than stimp 8 greens, for the reasons stated above: truer rolls, smaller strokes. They three putt (usually when a putt gets away from them) a tiny bit more often, but make a good bit more of the putts inside of 15'.

[Lihu]

20 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

I like to take into account various points of view while talking about ballstriking on the highest level. While I know that some stories from the past can be exaggerated I also believe in all of them there is a seed of truth, the more these opinions usually were formulated by knowledgable people.  On the other hand, in my opinion, pure statistics are important means to determine the quality of ballstriking but even they never reveal the whole truth. Gross scores can be even more misleading, not talking about longevity of terms of playing on tour. My definition for ballstriking is the ability to play desired shots on command. I presume noone intends to drive the ball into the woods instead fairways or outside greens.

Myth no.1.: these who play long on tour are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never played there or play shortly there;

Myth no.2.: these who win more are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never win or win less;

Both of the above are as ridiculous myths as one can imagine. Moreover, both can be easily busted with the same arguments:

# scoring is a derivative of tee-to-green play, short game and putting; there are many examples of great ballstrikers who scored not so well because of problems with putting (Ben Hogan, Moe Norman, George Knudsen, Mac O'Grady, not so long time ago Sergio Garcia) or even short game (today's Tiger Woods);

# scoring depends highly on mental side; there are many examples of great ballstrikers who scored poorly because of problems in this sphere and I believe golf is no different from all other sports and I know some prominent examples of great artists during  training hours, in sparrings or on the ranges who fail when they start real playing for something important (prizes, money, reputation, et caetera).

Ergo: it is not so easy to judge or compare ballstriking quality of players, especially from different generations.

 

Do you mean swing speed and not ball striking in its purest meaning?

Seems like ball striking is what separates us from pros. It’s also what separates the winners from the losers.

The pros have roughly the same speed Day to Day but not necessarily the same ball striking?

[mcanadiens]

Ah. The importance of ball striking (or alternatively the full swing) is a favorite on TST.

People seem to like to approach it from a pro standpoint, but just think about us poor old hackers. Even a total schmuck like me can two-putt most of the time. It's the tops, fats, shanks, OB, penalty shots and the like that make our scores what they are. If you give me 220 yards and fairways off each tee for one round, I can putt like an idiot and still better what I usually do. 

We often couch the argument in terms of what should you spend practice time on. Particularly for us familiar with multiple penalty strokes, the answer is obvious.

[Lihu]

15 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

We often couch the argument in terms of what should you spend practice time on. Particularly for us familiar with multiple penalty strokes, the answer is obvious.

Pretty obvious at all levels. Obviously, ball contact is the key, it’s just more subtle when you get better.

[Yff Theos]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

http://amzn.to/2EXQoQb

OK, thanks. Although I do not know the author and his credentials, I have read the comments and it seems it is really a must read. I have already ordered the book, let us see how reading it changes my mind in the matter. I wonder though if what is written in the book can refer to the past as well.

 

25 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Do you mean swing speed and not ball striking in its purest meaning?

Seems like ball striking is what separates us from pros. It’s also what separates the winners from the losers.

No, no, not the swing speed. Pure ballstriking quality as defined. Of course it is what separates amateurs most from pros and I agree that in the majority of cases it also separates winners from losers. Not in all cases though as I tried to argue.

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, Yff Theos said:

Not in all cases though as I tried to argue.

Of course, but I don’t think anyone argued this point.

[Yff Theos]

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Of course, but I don’t think anyone argued this point.

Unfortunately, this point was argued.

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Unfortunately, this point was argued.

I don't believe "ALL" was ever argued (by the side opposite your position). It's you who has been called out for your use of the word "ALWAYS".

Here are two things I've said about the "always" type stuff:

21 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't think either of those are myths, unless you lean really, really heavily on the capitalized word you snuck into each.

14 hours ago, iacas said:

Not interested in discussing "always"/"never" type crap. Pointless.

:sigh:

[Lihu]

7 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

Unfortunately, this point was argued.

The first thing Erik stated was that he agreed because of the "ALWAYS" statements, but the meaning of your post is not precise in the sense that it seems to imply something not true that is true 0.0001% of the time.

 

21 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Myth no.1.: these who play long on tour are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never played there or play shortly there;

Of course this is not true. They could have a 120 mph swing speed with 0.01 less points of smash factor than someone who swings "only" 115, but they still hit farther and possible straighter? Not all clubs are designed perfectly, and pros know how to get the most out of their equipment. So, they might hit a spot on the club that doesn't give them the best smash factor.

 

21 hours ago, Yff Theos said:

Myth no.2.: these who win more are ALWAYS better ballstrikers to those who never win or win less;

This isn't really saying anything that argues the point.

What Erik stated below is unequivocally true, but doesn't directly argue against your statement. 

 

20 hours ago, iacas said:

Ballstriking matters a lot.

And the secret to long-term success on the PGA Tour is ball-striking.

 

Again, I think this is a misunderstanding of words and intent.

[Yff Theos]

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

The first thing Erik stated was that he agreed because of the "ALWAYS" statements, but the meaning of your post is not precise in the sense that it seems to imply something not true that is true 0.0001% of the time.

I created this thread mainly for the discussion about Mac's ballstriking quality. I simply believe Mac was a better ballstriker than whole bunch of average PGA tour players despite he played shorter on tour than some of them and won less than some of them. I wanted to say that neither the number of years played on tour nor the number of wins can always determine a better ballstriker.

How should I try to discuss it then, in your opinion?

13 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Of course this is not true. They could have a 120 mph swing speed with 0.01 less points of smash factor than someone who swings "only" 115, but they still hit farther and possible straighter? Not all clubs are designed perfectly, and pros know how to get the most out of their equipment. So, they might hit a spot on the club that doesn't give them the best smash factor.

I think you misunderstood the word 'long'. I meant not these who are long off the tee, but these who play long periods of time.

 

14 minutes ago, Lihu said:

This isn't really saying anything that argues the point.

It is a widely known fact that it is possible. Hogan is the best example to illustrate that myth.

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Of course this is not true. They could have a 120 mph swing speed with 0.01 less points of smash factor than someone who swings "only" 115, but they still hit farther and possible straighter? Not all clubs are designed perfectly, and pros know how to get the most out of their equipment. So, they might hit a spot on the club that doesn't give them the best smash factor.

@Lihu, he meant play for a number of years (a "long" time), not distance.

He's Polish. Like you, "ESL."

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

I created this thread mainly for the discussion about Mac's ballstriking quality. I simply believe Mac was a better ballstriker than whole bunch of average PGA tour players despite he played shorter on tour than some of them and won less than some of them.

And you can't accept that this may be wrong, so you continue to attempt to justify everything, and make yourself look foolish in the process, because you don't even really understand the thing you're talking about. You don't have the table stakes.

4 minutes ago, Yff Theos said:

It is a widely known fact that it is possible. Hogan is the best example to illustrate that myth.

You do not seem to understand the definition of the word "fact."

Ben Hogan won, from memory, 64, 65 PGA Tour events? He's behind only Tiger, Snead, and Nicklaus, right? He won nine (he would have told you ten) major championships.

And… he was known as one of the best ball-strikers.

So… tell me again how poor putting held him back, and that it wasn't just his aching body, the car accident, etc. that limited his career… a career that resulted in over 60 PGA Tour wins and double-digit (in his mind) major championship victories?

[Yff Theos]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

And you can't accept that this may be wrong, so you continue to attempt to justify everything, and make yourself look foolish in the process, because you don't even really understand the thing you're talking about. You don't have the table stakes.

Yes, this can be wrong. But this can be also right, which you do not seem to be able to accept. By the way, it is you who make yourself look foolish when arguing against opinions of knowledgable people from the past who were eye witnesses. You look even more foolish when you ignore what the best player ever said about Knudsen, by the way.

 

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

So… tell me again how poor putting held him back, and that it wasn't just his aching body, the car accident, etc. that limited his career… a career that resulted in over 60 PGA Tour wins and double-digit (in his mind) major championship victories?

It is a FACT that Hogan lost several important tournaments because of lousy putting. Lots of greats confirmed this when memorizing Hogan. I wonder if you are so ignorant in this point or you want simply to stirr the shit?

[Phil McGleno]

How in tarnation do you think Ben Hogan proves your point?-His left eye was damaged in the accident and by the time he started freezing and jerking over short putts he was in his late 40s.

In 1953-when he won all three majors he played in-He was 41 fer crissakes. Never really started winning much until he got control of his ballstriking in the 40s and his Secret was-What?-1946?