Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Blog Comments posted by iacas

  1. On 12/12/2016 at 11:12 PM, JonMA1 said:

    I think land up here is still around $2000 an acre, maybe a bit higher with a creek running through it. So for $50,000, I could have the land. The wife and I have talked about our next home having acreage, so 25 acres isn't completely out of the question. Sadly, that would probably be the cheapest part of the deal. 

    What kind of a course are you going to put on 25 acres?

    Or did I misread your post?

  2. Uh, yes, you need to work on your putting.

    I don't even think your short game might not need much work… if you chip it to seven feet and then miss the putt most of the time… that's not your short game at fault.

    This is backed up by comparing your stats to the various handicap levels.


    Now, Strokes Gained done properly doesn't care what you do with the resulting putt, so you're still losing a few strokes with your short game… but not many, and not compared to the true glaring weakness: your putting.

  3. 12 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

    The only problem I have with some instructors is their way is the only way! Sorry, but I have eyes, I watch golf on TV, and know that isn't so. These guys always seem to want to do a complete tear down and rebuild. I'm 64, and have been playing for 50 years, so I'm not going to be into that. Take what I have, work with it, and help me improve.

    Yes, we have a word for those kinds of instructors: bad.

    Nobody has to "rebuild" their golf swing from the ground up. Well, there may be one guy I know of, but he literally can't even chip a ball six feet with his current state… next summer if he's still playing I'm going to convert him to lefty or something. :-)

  4. 8 hours ago, CarlSpackler said:

    Would definitely be interested in reading that. I'm not sure what you mean by 25%, 40%... It seems like I should know, but it's not ringing a bell at the moment.

    In general, a 10 handicapper should lose 2.5 strokes to a scratch score driving, 4.0 strokes on approach shots, 2.0 shots to short game, and 1.5 strokes putting.

    So if you are 3.5 worse than a scratch golfer in approach shots, that number is larger than 2.0 strokes putting, but you're comparatively a worse putter than the average 10 and a little bit better than the generalized 10 handicapper with your irons.

  5. I might write up something about this, but remember that it's often about 25%, 40%, 20%, 15%… so it's important that the ratios are about the same, too, or it indicates a deficiency.

    If you're (making this up), losing 3 strokes with your short game and 3 strokes with your approach shots, they're not equal: you're proportionally a worse short game player.

  6. 6 hours ago, RandallT said:

    I prefer to lump everything into the 4 categories: drive/approach/short/putt. If I have a recovery shot, I just don't see the value in knowing how many strokes I gain or lose from those. But I do see value in penalizing the prior shot. Not sure that answers your question.

    That's fine and a good way to do things.

    FWIW, when we are considering things with students, we lump things into far more categories. For one student, they might be:

    • Drivers.
    • Long irons (whatever yardages they are for the golfer)
    • Mid irons (ditto)
    • Short irons (ditto)
    • Partial wedges (60-120 yards?)
    • Short game (<60 yards).
    • Bunker play.
    • Long putts (often "speed" with a dose of "read")
    • Short putts (often "bead" with a dose of "read")

    Now, "bunker play" is rarely something we focus on specifically, but if a guy's a 6 and takes 4 strokes to get in the hole from bunkers, it's a glaring flaw.

  7. Two quick notes:

    • Though I appreciate that you're going to do 0.5 strokes occasionally, almost every shot is a partial shot lost or gained. Even from 7 feet you're probably looking at averaging 1.5 strokes. Drives are often not "1" but often 1.1 or 0.8 or whatever. And so on.
    • You're not expected to make par on every hole. Though it's generally close enough, in relation to the above, some holes are going to be 4.6 for you (or 4.4 for a scratch golfer), while others might be 4.1 (or 3.8).

    GAME GOLF is somewhat limited, particularly in the short term, because it doesn't know that a punch-out is necessarily a result of a bad drive. It may see you as 150 from the green and then hitting it only 30 yards and take off points from your approach shot game. Generally speaking, it will do a good job over the long haul, because there will be times you hit it in the trees (and GG blames your driver) but you have an opening and can easily hit the green.

  8. 11 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

    I think it would depend on whether I was "getting it" or not.

    When I took online lessons, the initial primary piece was pretty easy to understand and implement. So the only thing needed was to work on it for an extended period of time to make it stick. Two weeks to a month was fine.

    But the next piece I never really understood. I spent a couple weeks of uncertainty as to whether or not I was practicing something beneficial. It turned out I hadn't been. In that case, it would have been nice to know I was investing the time poorly.

    @JonMA1, online lessons (at least via evolvr) don't follow this same rule. You're paying much less with evolvr at $39/month, so weekly is fine, even submitting a video just to ask if you're doing a drill properly.

    6 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

    I voted for weekly lessons, but what I would really prefer is variable.   I'd like to be able to take a lesson and then schedule the next one when I think I'm ready.

    That's basically how I structure all of my lessons, with some consideration for their competitive schedules.

    2 hours ago, allenc said:

    Why is the first teacher so much cheaper? Is he just as good as the second one?  If so then I would get monthly one hour lessons from the first guy for $60.  Trick question!

    He's not. Every week it's a grab bag of different things. The students never really improve. :-)

    But for the purpose of this discussion, they're the same… and he's just basically giving a volume discount on a per-minute basis (but a higher monthly cost).

  9. 6 hours ago, Pete said:

    Congu research shows the CSS (competition scratch score) in competitions is definitely higher through winter compared to summer. I know the weather isn't identical but they are both northern hemisphere climates. I know what you're saying but on average they are harder conditions to score in.

    I imagine that's true, but… I wasn't talking about "winter" - I was talking about an extra two weeks on the beginning or end of the normal season.

  10. 5 hours ago, bkuehn1952 said:

    Not much.  Still, a handicap index is supposed to measure a player's potential.  Scores from March, April, late October and November are typically going to be made in tougher conditions and won't reflect one's potential for scoring in May-September.

    Who says they're tougher conditions?

    Softer, slower greens are sometimes easier. Softer fairways. Fewer leaves on the trees. Pros shoot lower scores in softer conditions, after all…

    5 hours ago, bkuehn1952 said:

    Last year I recorded 6 scores after 10/31 and 14 total after 10/15.  This Spring I had 6 scores from 3/15 to 3/31 and another 8 prior to 4/15, for a total of 14.  So my index on 4/15/2016 was totally comprised of differentials made under very marginal course & weather conditions.  When the weather improved, I was more competitive with my somewhat bloated index than perhaps my actual "potential".

    How different were the scores? And if you play that often, you'll play enough rounds within the next revision or two to get them out of your last 20.

  11. How much does this really matter?

    By that, I mean… how many times could you play in those two weeks that are going to be bumping your scores significantly? Recreational players don't play much in the fringe seasons, so you'll play plenty of times over the spring/summer to bump these fringe scores out, too.

    I know I've hated that I could not post rounds on days when conditions were fine just because it was "out of season." Hell, we had a January five years ago or so where guys played 20+ rounds. None counted, though it was 60° and sunny all month. The course was fine.

  12. 2 hours ago, mvmac said:

    I do find it interesting that we had generations of golfers that allowed their lower body's to turn (even lift the lead heel) and then sometime during the 80's/90's we stopped it. Maybe it's just my perception/bias but guys like Snead, Nelson, Palmer, Player, Casper, Boros, Lema, Picard, Sarazen, Thomson didn't seem to struggle with back pain and they weren't as fit as today's players.

    They didn't work out or play or practice nearly as hard either. They also still probably had injuries (I am not saying more or even the same number) but the media wasn't as pervasive.

  • 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...