Jump to content
iacas

Overrated/Underrated (Golf) Topic

455 posts / 31318 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

On 12/3/2018 at 1:23 PM, iacas said:

 

Underrated or Overrated #1 - Reaching Par Fives in Two

Underrated.  My most recent home course had a short downhill par 5 (450 yards from the middle tees) to a green that was protected by bunkers, water, and some judiciously placed tall trees to block your second shot.  I was never a big hitter but if I could get a lot of roll off my drive and be in the right position I have made it onto the green about 10 times in 2 over 4 years.  I never made the eagle putt but did manage to birdie most of them.  Now I was in my mid-sixties and was thrilled.  For those of you that can reach a level 500+ yard par 5 in 2 what a great advantage you have!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

This shouldn't count towards the 12 hour time.... just wanted to say this is a great idea for a thread! Nice @iacas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

On 12/3/2018 at 12:23 PM, iacas said:

Underrated or Overrated #1 - Reaching Par Fives in Two

Reaching Par 5s in two~ underrated.  

Trying to reach in two~ overrated.

My club has two courses, with 9 par 5s on them.  Of the 9, 7 have water green side, and all have water in play.  We play tees at 6,500 yards and all of the par 5s are more than 510 yards.  Based on those facts, the risk/ reward makes going for the green in two overrated. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

20 hours ago, iacas said:

The average golfer is much better at playing a short shot from the rough than hitting a wedge. You made the assumption that there is "trouble" near the green. Even if you're in a green side bunker in two, that's often preferred to having 115 in… because a portion of those shots from 115 might find that same green side bunker.

 

Being in the bunker may be better than being 115 yards out, but I don't really see that as the choice.  If I can just about reach with a fairway wood, then the layup would be with a mid-iron that would leave me 50-70 yards. I generally get as close as I can with a shot that I can execute reliably, and does take on the greenside trouble. 

I also don't see the bunker as the worst case scenario with a fairway wood - the worst case scenario is a ball out of play, with a bunker shot being the middle scenario. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BushwoodCC said:

My club has two courses, with 9 par 5s on them.  Of the 9, 7 have water green side, and all have water in play.  

That's a very very narrow viewpoint to support your opinion. You are basing your argument on two golf courses that you play out of tens of thousands that exist in the world.

I can easily argue against your opinion by showing some pictures of a local course I play that has no water for the approach shots on any par 5s. Everyone has specific examples that can point one way or the other, but IMO the best answer/argument is one that can be applied to the majority of golfers on the majority of the courses.

image.pngimage.pngimage.pngimage.png

10 hours ago, BushwoodCC said:

We play tees at 6,500 yards and all of the par 5s are more than 510 yards.  

Again, very very narrow scope. It's only overrated to you because you cant safely reach the greens in 2 shots from the tees you are playing. If you were playing from 5500yd tees or could drive it as far as a PGA tour player, then suddenly it is no longer overrated because you can safely reach the green in 2 shots. Like I said earlier, with questions like this I typically try to view them and frame my answer in a way so it can apply to the largest amount of golfers on the largest amount of courses.

 

19 minutes ago, Moxley said:

If I can just about reach with a fairway wood, then the layup would be with a mid-iron that would leave me 50-70 yards. 

20 minutes ago, Moxley said:

I generally get as close as I can with a shot that I can execute reliably, and does take on the greenside trouble. 

These statements somewhat contradict each other. You said you would lay up to 50-70 yds instead of going for it, then the next sentence you said you try to get as close as you can reliably while taking on greenside trouble.

If your miss with a fairway wood really does bring that much O.B. into play, then hit a hybrid or long iron so you have 20-30 yds left in instead of 50-70 yds. 

Even if you miss the fairway with the hybrid or long iron, 20 yds from the rough is going to result in a closer average proximity than from 70 yds in the middle of the fairway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

On 12/3/2018 at 11:23 AM, iacas said:

 

Underrated or Overrated #1 - Reaching Par Fives in Two

Reaching par 5s in two, underrated. Going for par 5s in two ALSO underrated. I am not sure why people insist on holding on to the bullshit, outdated, strategy of laying up to a "good" yardage.  You want to know a good yardage? As close as you can get to the green. The best yardage? On the green. I have been playing golf for 25 years, I have played all over United States, in Canada and Mexico. It is a rarity to find a par 5 that warrants a layup. When you do get a dastardly par 5 your best option is still to get as close as you can while avoiding whatever ghastly area they've manufactured next to the green. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, klineka said:

That's a very very narrow viewpoint to support your opinion. You are basing your argument on two golf courses that you play out of tens of thousands that exist in the world.

I can easily argue against your opinion by showing some pictures of a local course I play that has no water for the approach shots on any par 5s. Everyone has specific examples that can point one way or the other, but IMO the best answer/argument is one that can be applied to the majority of golfers on the majority of the courses.

image.pngimage.pngimage.pngimage.png

Again, very very narrow scope. It's only overrated to you because you cant safely reach the greens in 2 shots from the tees you are playing. If you were playing from 5500yd tees or could drive it as far as a PGA tour player, then suddenly it is no longer overrated because you can safely reach the green in 2 shots. Like I said earlier, with questions like this I typically try to view them and frame my answer in a way so it can apply to the largest amount of golfers on the largest amount of courses.

 

These statements somewhat contradict each other. You said you would lay up to 50-70 yds instead of going for it, then the next sentence you said you try to get as close as you can reliably while taking on greenside trouble.

If your miss with a fairway wood really does bring that much O.B. into play, then hit a hybrid or long iron so you have 20-30 yds left in instead of 50-70 yds. 

Even if you miss the fairway with the hybrid or long iron, 20 yds from the rough is going to result in a closer average proximity than from 70 yds in the middle of the fairway. 

I used those two courses as an example.  In the last 10 years, I have played more than 50 courses - playing from 6,000 yards to 6,800 yards.  Most of those courses have been in the Southeast, where we have either water or terrain (rocks, creeks, gulleys, etc.) that is incorporated into the course.

At 6,800 yards (a rarity but occasional), it's not an option for me - I am not that long off the tee.  Based on those facts, going for the green in two is overrated.

At 6,200 or less, it is an option for me as those Par 5's are in the 425 - 485 range - making them reachable in two.  Of those instances (which are most often in a competitive event), I would guess that 1 of every 3 par 5's does not have greenside trouble (water or some other type of hazard) - which means that a  shot struck 3W,5W, or hybrid is a logical choice 33% of the time on a reachable par 5 from among 50+ courses.  Based on that (2/3 risky, 1/3 not that risky), I'd still consider it overrated. 

My "ratings" are highly dependent on what type game you are playing - I am basing my opinion on stroke play, in a competition.  If you are playing Stableford or some other format (including a casual round), the ratings may be different as making an eagle could be worth the risk of hitting into a hazard.

Final thought: I the approach is 200 or less to clear any hazard, or 215 or less to the front of the green, I would go for it all day.  I suppose that is my real "decision point".

13 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

Reaching par 5s in two, underrated. Going for par 5s in two ALSO underrated. I am not sure why people insist on holding on to the bullshit, outdated, strategy of laying up to a "good" yardage.  You want to know a good yardage? As close as you can get to the green. The best yardage? On the green. I have been playing golf for 25 years, I have played all over United States, in Canada and Mexico. It is a rarity to find a par 5 that warrants a layup. When you do get a dastardly par 5 your best option is still to get as close as you can while avoiding whatever ghastly area they've manufactured next to the green. 

Agree with your contention about getting close to the green - so maybe the difference is what constitutes a "layup"....

 Here is an example:  

  • 535 yard par 5.  Your drive is 285, center of the fairway.
  • 250 to the pin
  • 240 to the front of the green
  • 235 to clear hazard that protects 85% of the green - so you have a neck of land about 8 yards wide 
  • Are you :
    • (1) firing a 3 wood, counting on hitting it either (a) 235 in the air, or (b) landing it on a 8 yard strip of land that is not the hazard? 
    • (2) Or are you hitting a hybrid 200 yards and leaving yourself a 50 yard pitch?  
  • If you chose 2, is that a "layup" or are you "getting as close to the green as you can"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 minute ago, BushwoodCC said:

I am basing my opinion on stroke play, in a competition. 

No, you're basing your opinion on what you are capable of, without taking a step back and evaluating this from the perspective of the majority of golfers on the majority of golf courses.

11 minutes ago, BushwoodCC said:

At 6,200 or less, it is an option for me as those Par 5's are in the 425 - 485 range - making them reachable in two.  Of those instances (which are most often in a competitive event), I would guess that 1 of every 3 par 5's does not have greenside trouble (water or some other type of hazard) - which means that a  shot struck 3W,5W, or hybrid is a logical choice 33% of the time on a reachable par 5 from among 50+ courses.  Based on that (2/3 risky, 1/3 not that risky), I'd still consider it overrated

The last sentence of that quote states that your opinion is based on made up, hypothetical numbers. That's a very very weak argument.

Multiple people including myself have posted real facts and data from the PGA tour showing a clear advantage when they go for it vs when they lay up, and they play on some of the hardest courses in the world that have plenty of hazards around the greens. Yes they are better players, but the overarching concept still remains even when applied to amateur golfers.

 

17 minutes ago, BushwoodCC said:

I used those two courses as an example.  In the last 10 years, I have played more than 50 courses - playing from 6,000 yards to 6,800 yards.  Most of those courses have been in the Southeast, where we have either water or terrain (rocks, creeks, gulleys, etc.) that is incorporated into the course.

At 6,800 yards (a rarity but occasional), it's not an option for me - I am not that long off the tee.  Based on those facts, going for the green in two is overrated.

At 6,200 or less, it is an option for me as those Par 5's are in the 425 - 485 range - making them reachable in two.  Of those instances (which are most often in a competitive event), I would guess that 1 of every 3 par 5's does not have greenside trouble (water or some other type of hazard) - which means that a  shot struck 3W,5W, or hybrid is a logical choice 33% of the time on a reachable par 5 from among 50+ courses.  Based on that (2/3 risky, 1/3 not that risky), I'd still consider it overrated. 

My "ratings" are highly dependent on what type game you are playing - I am basing my opinion on stroke play, in a competition.  If you are playing Stableford or some other format (including a casual round), the ratings may be different as making an eagle could be worth the risk of hitting into a hazard.

Final thought: I the approach is 200 or less to clear any hazard, or 215 or less to the front of the green, I would go for it all day.  I suppose that is my real "decision point".

Everything you just said there is based on the courses you play and your skill level. Just because you feel that reaching the green in 2 is overrated for your game (although I still question that) that doesn't mean the same holds true for the majority of golfers across the majority of courses.

I encourage you to try to think about this from the perspective of the majority of golfers on the majority of courses. 

For the majority of golfers on the majority of courses, reaching the green in 2 shots is underrated, and going for the green in 2 shots is also underrated. If you want to shoot as low of scores as possible, you need to be advancing your ball as far as safely possible, even if it does bring some risk of hazard or O.B. in play (sometimes the shot zone especially for amateurs are simply too large and you have to accept the fact that there's a chance your ball could go in the hazard or O.B.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, BushwoodCC said:

Agree with your contention about getting close to the green - so maybe the difference is what constitutes a "layup"....

 Here is an example:  

  • 535 yard par 5.  Your drive is 285, center of the fairway.
  • 250 to the pin
  • 240 to the front of the green
  • 235 to clear hazard that protects 85% of the green - so you have a neck of land about 8 yards wide 
  • Are you :
    • (1) firing a 3 wood, counting on hitting it either (a) 235 in the air, or (b) landing it on a 8 yard strip of land that is not the hazard? 
    • (2) Or are you hitting a hybrid 200 yards and leaving yourself a 50 yard pitch?  
  • If you chose 2, is that a "layup" or are you "getting as close to the green as you can"?

 

To me a layup is when you hit any club shorter than either your longest club or the club necessary to get to the green. In your scenario, 2 is most definitely a layup. That being said, there are holes that necessitate a layup, possibly like the hole you describe. I would, however, question whether they exist with the frequency you stated. I cannot speak to the courses in Alabama, as I have never played there, I can only say in my experience and travels I have not seen that many. 

The most difficult course I have ever played is probably PineHurst no. 2. I went for the green in two on all four of the par 5s. The scariest par 5 I can remember playing is the 571 yard 18th hole at the Rio Grande Club in South Fork, Colorado (picture below). There is OB down the entire left side of the fairway, right of the fairway is even worse. There is water short and left of the green, a bunker right of the green and OB 10 yards behind the green. I still go for the green there every time unless I hit a really poor drive and end up in the weeds. I have also played that hole in 9 under par for my last 8 rounds (3 eagles 3 birdies, 2 pars). 

I will say that obviously length will come into play and will force more layups when there are hazards that must be cleared in front of a green. BUT given you have the length to get to a green, a majority of the time going for the green is your best bet.

 

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 8.20.28 AM.png

Edited by NM Golf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, klineka said:

These statements somewhat contradict each other. You said you would lay up to 50-70 yds instead of going for it, then the next sentence you said you try to get as close as you can reliably while taking on greenside trouble.

If your miss with a fairway wood really does bring that much O.B. into play, then hit a hybrid or long iron so you have 20-30 yds left in instead of 50-70 yds. 

Even if you miss the fairway with the hybrid or long iron, 20 yds from the rough is going to result in a closer average proximity than from 70 yds in the middle of the fairway. 

 

They do not - I said reliably. I can hit a 6 iron reliably, but beyond that, it starts to tail off. If my 6 iron gets my to 50 yards out, then I need a 3 hybrid to to 20 yards - a harder shot and for what? just being a bit closer. Whether I can get the 20 yard shot closer will depend on the lie and whether I now need to lob over bunkers. I'd take on more risk with the initial shot, to potentially leave myself with another risky shot. 

A straight shot from 50 to 70 yards, on the other hand, in a good lie (fairway or primary rough), really isn't that hard.

1 hour ago, klineka said:

Multiple people including myself have posted real facts and data from the PGA tour showing a clear advantage when they go for it vs when they lay up, and they play on some of the hardest courses in the world that have plenty of hazards around the greens. Yes they are better players, but the overarching concept still remains even when applied to amateur golfers.

How do you know the concept remains the same? Most things vary by handicap level , including shot zones. When the shot zone width widens to the point that it will bring into play penalty shots, the expectation is going to jump up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Moxley said:

 

They do not - I said reliably. I can hit a 6 iron reliably, but beyond that, it starts to tail off. If my 6 iron gets my to 50 yards out, then I need a 3 hybrid to to 20 yards - a harder shot and for what? just being a bit closer. Whether I can get the 20 yard shot closer will depend on the lie and whether I now need to lob over bunkers. I'd take on more risk with the initial shot, to potentially leave myself with another risky shot. 

A straight shot from 50 to 70 yards, on the other hand, in a good lie (fairway or primary rough), really isn't that hard.

How do you know the concept remains the same? Most things vary by handicap level , including shot zones. When the shot zone width widens to the point that it will bring into play penalty shots, the expectation is going to jump up. 

Actually, proximity to the hole decreases considerably the closer you get to the hole. PGA statistics for 2018 show from 20-30 yards the average proximity to the hole was just over 9 feet. From 50-75 yards the average was just over 16 feet. Putting statistics show that PGA Tour players make more than twice as many putts from 5-10 feet than they do from 15-20 feet. This is even more true as handicaps get higher. Your argument holds no water. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

14 minutes ago, Moxley said:

They do not - I said reliably. I can hit a 6 iron reliably, but beyond that, it starts to tail off. If my 6 iron gets my to 50 yards out, then I need a 3 hybrid to to 20 yards - a harder shot and for what? just being a bit closer. Whether I can get the 20 yard shot closer will depend on the lie and whether I now need to lob over bunkers. I'd take on more risk with the initial shot, to potentially leave myself with another risky shot. 

More often than not (unless there is a glaring weakness in pitching/chipping) you will end up with a closer proximity to the hole on your 20 yd shots than with your 50 yd shots. For a lot of people, the decrease in proximity is worth the extra risk you are taking on especially when it plays out over numerous rounds. Sure you might hit it out of bounds more often hitting the 3 hybrid than you will hitting the 6 iron, but you're also more likely to make birdie from 20 yds than you are from 50 yds.

 

27 minutes ago, Moxley said:

I'd take on more risk with the initial shot, to potentially leave myself with another risky shot. 

You have more of a chance of hitting the 50 yd shot into the bunker than you do the 20 yd shot.

 

18 minutes ago, Moxley said:

A straight shot from 50 to 70 yards, on the other hand, in a good lie (fairway or primary rough), really isn't that hard.

Glaring weaknesses aside, a 20 yd shot is easier to get close on average than a 50 yd shot. 

Out of the fairway last year, PGA tour players averaged 16 ft proximity from 50-75 yds.

I'd say a conservative guess for all amateurs proximity from 50-75 yds is double that of the PGA players, so 32 feet at a minimum is what the proximity to the hole is across all levels of amateur golfers from that range. (It could be even higher than that, I dont have my copy of LSW with me to verify)

You can look at the graphic below and see that amateur golfers of all handicaps average more than 2 putts from 30+ feet, and that the 3 putt percentage is 10-20%+ (even higher for higher handicap golfers)

Last year PGA tour players averaged 9 ft proximity from 20-30 yds.

Following the same trend, if we double that for amateurs, we have 18 ft average proximity from 20-30 yds.

Looking at the same graphic but from 18 ft, you can see that the 3 putt percentage from 18 ft is ~3% for scratch and 6-7% for 90s golfers.

 

So if an amateur is 50-75 yds out, with an average proximity of 32 feet, they'll 3 putt somewhere between 10-30% of the time

If an amateur is 20-30 yds out, with an average proximity of 18 ft, they'll 3 putt somewhere between 3-15% of the time. 

The one putt probability from 32 ft vs 18 feet is huge as well, 10-15% more likely to one putt from 18 ft vs 32 feet.

Those number show how important getting the ball as close to the green as possible is, even if it means bringing some hazards into play. 

 

19 minutes ago, Moxley said:

How do you know the concept remains the same? Most things vary by handicap level , including shot zones. When the shot zone width widens to the point that it will bring into play penalty shots, the expectation is going to jump up. 

There have been studies of amateur golfers, which are shared in LSW, that describe what I am trying to explain in greater detail. Like I said previously, sometimes with amateur shot zones, O.B. or a hazard being in play is simply something that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 hours ago, Moxley said:

Being in the bunker may be better than being 115 yards out, but I don't really see that as the choice.  If I can just about reach with a fairway wood, then the layup would be with a mid-iron that would leave me 50-70 yards.

Here's the way the math tends to work out:

80% of the time from the fairway @ 60 yards + 20% of the time from the rough at 60 yards > 10% of the time on the green in two + 30% of the time in the greenside bunker in two + 40% of the time in the greenside rough in two + 20% of the time in the fairway short of the green in two.

55 minutes ago, Moxley said:

They do not - I said reliably. I can hit a 6 iron reliably, but beyond that, it starts to tail off. If my 6 iron gets my to 50 yards out, then I need a 3 hybrid to to 20 yards - a harder shot and for what?

You're almost always going to average hitting it closer to the hole from 20 yards instead of from 50. So no, I reject that the 3 hybrid to 20 yards is going to, on average, be "a harder shot." On average, it ain't.

Also, people who say things like "I'm reliable with my 6-iron but change it up two or three clubs and it's a shit show" are usually unaware of how bad they are with their "reliable" club, too. Sometimes you're gonna hit a bad 6-iron and leave yourself 90 yards from the rough. You're not hitting them all to 50 yards dead in the middle of the fairway.

55 minutes ago, Moxley said:

A straight shot from 50 to 70 yards, on the other hand, in a good lie (fairway or primary rough), really isn't that hard.

It's harder than the average 20-yard shot.

55 minutes ago, Moxley said:

How do you know the concept remains the same? Most things vary by handicap level , including shot zones. When the shot zone width widens to the point that it will bring into play penalty shots, the expectation is going to jump up. 

There aren't often penalty shots that close to the green on par fives. I think some of you are overplaying how often penalty shots play a role in these holes.

Look there. From 60 yards in the fairway (this assumes fairway every time), they're at 2.7. From the rough (assuming rough every time), they're at 2.59. That's over a tenth of a shot, and assumes 100% perfect (fairway) and 100% bad (rough) results each time. (Note too that PGA Tour players are poor from the rough, relatively - they're only 2.53 from the sand. For average players, these numbers often flip - they're better off in the rough and slightly worse off in the sand).

Your assumptions that a 50-yard shot that won't always be in the fairway is easier than a 20-yard shot that won't always be in the rough are likely wrong.

You really should contact Andrew Norrby, and read with an open mind. It's very easy to talk yourself into certain beliefs, and not easy to work your way out of them. But you stand to benefit if you can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

Also, people who say things like "I'm reliable with my 6-iron but change it up two or three clubs and it's a shit show" are usually unaware of how bad they are with their "reliable" club, too. Sometimes you're gonna hit a bad 6-iron and leave yourself 90 yards from the rough. You're not hitting them all to 50 yards dead in the middle of the fairway.

This is maybe the most truthful statement in this whole argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Post #24, for housekeeping purposes, is the last one to reset the 12-hour clock. It was at about 11:30am eastern time today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

7 hours ago, klineka said:

No, you're basing your opinion on what you are capable of, without taking a step back and evaluating this from the perspective of the majority of golfers on the majority of golf courses.

The last sentence of that quote states that your opinion is based on made up, hypothetical numbers. That's a very very weak argument.

Multiple people including myself have posted real facts and data from the PGA tour showing a clear advantage when they go for it vs when they lay up, and they play on some of the hardest courses in the world that have plenty of hazards around the greens. Yes they are better players, but the overarching concept still remains even when applied to amateur golfers.

 

Everything you just said there is based on the courses you play and your skill level. Just because you feel that reaching the green in 2 is overrated for your game (although I still question that) that doesn't mean the same holds true for the majority of golfers across the majority of courses.

I encourage you to try to think about this from the perspective of the majority of golfers on the majority of courses. 

For the majority of golfers on the majority of courses, reaching the green in 2 shots is underrated, and going for the green in 2 shots is also underrated. If you want to shoot as low of scores as possible, you need to be advancing your ball as far as safely possible, even if it does bring some risk of hazard or O.B. in play (sometimes the shot zone especially for amateurs are simply too large and you have to accept the fact that there's a chance your ball could go in the hazard or O.B.)

So basically you are telling me that in an “opinion poll”, my opinion is wrong and yours is right. OK...

Let me add this then, I will multiply my sample size to include all rounds I’ve played in the last two years, with all the partners and competitora I have witnessed personally. That will include people who are anywhere from a 12 index to a scratch.  Over 95 percent of these par 5s were played with the player not attempting to hit the green with their 2nd shot. Maybe its because I dont play parkland courses with arrow straight par 5s... Maybe its because of the length of the par 5s on the courses... Maybe its the definition of a “lay up”.... Maybe its because the people I play with are playing for a score and realize that whaling their longest club into the water or over the green is too costly... But I am pretty sure that among all these holes, across all these people, they are not “wrong”.

i think it comes down to something this- if you can reach the green (and hold it) 50 percent of the time, then the risk is worth it.... but if its a one in twenty chance that you can hit it 230 in the air and hold the green with that shot, you shouldn’t attempt it. 

PGA statistics are meaningless - because they know where their ball is going when they attempt to reach a par 5 in two, and they only attempt it if they can reach and hold the green. 

This seems like such common sense I cannot believe it is even a debate...

Edited by BushwoodCC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

25 minutes ago, BushwoodCC said:

i think it comes down to something this- if you can reach the green (and hold it) 50 percent of the time, then the risk is worth it.... but if its a one in twenty chance that you can hit it 230 in the air and hold the green with that shot, you shouldn’t attempt it.

Amateurs should go for it far, far more often than when it's 50%.

25 minutes ago, BushwoodCC said:

PGA statistics are meaningless - because they know where their ball is going when they attempt to reach a par 5 in two, and they only attempt it if they can reach and hold the green. 

This seems like such common sense I cannot believe it is even a debate...

Common sense is often proven wrong, particularly in golf.

Even average players are far more likely to make a lower score, on average, from 20 yards than they are from 50 in the fairway, and that number only goes up as they get farther away (even staying in the fairway) or the more often they are able to hit the green.

So I don't care if it's 100% in the rough… they're gonna average lower than 60 yards 100% in the fairway.

You should buy a copy of Lowest Score Wins. A lot of "common sense" is actually dead wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

20 minutes ago, BushwoodCC said:

So basically you are telling me that in an “opinion poll”, my opinion is wrong and yours is right. OK...

I never said your opinion was wrong. I said my opinion is backed up with facts and evidence that can be applied to a large number of golfers on a large number of golf courses.

Your opinion is based on a much smaller number of golfers and golf courses that likely are not an accurate representation of the majority of golf courses that exist.

My opinion is based on broad facts, while your opinion is based on narrow guesstimates. (Example, the 95% stat you referenced isn't actually a fact unless you know and recorded exactly how many times in every round you played in over the past 2 years that both you and every single playing partner went for it/didnt go for it) (Even then it's a super narrow data point because it is likely only accounting for less than 50 different golf courses)

28 minutes ago, BushwoodCC said:

 But I am pretty sure that among all these holes, across all these people, they are not “wrong”.

Again.  Very very narrow scope. Lets say you played 50 rounds per year, and played with 3 new people every round with no repeat playing partners (unlikely). Over 2 years that's only 300 golfers you will have personally witnessed. That is a VERY small number when compared to the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people that play golf in the US alone.

Hell I could probably find at least a couple thousand people if not more who still believe that "drive for show putt for dough" and that "putting is the most important part of your game"  are accurate (clearly they arent, and there is data and books that prove that those arent right)

Just because I can find a bunch of people to believe something doesnt automatically make them right. That's silly.

Like I said before, I encourage you to try to find and share facts that support your opinion that include a majority of golfers on a majority of courses, not "facts" that are based on a couple hundred golfers on a small number of courses.

And pick up a copy of Lowest Score Wins. It goes into much more detail than I am capable of explaining here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...