ctyankee

Thanks. That bit of wisdom reminded me why I don't post here often.

Her putting problems are far from recent. She lost in the Girl's Amateur. Crushed the ball past all of her opponents and lost because other made putts and she didn't. Nothing new.

To my thinking, some of the worst rules in golf involve sand trap situations. Example: a flash shower occurs during a tournament. The only dry place left in the bunker is at a point closer to the pin with the rest of the bunker underwater. So, the unlucky competitor can (1) play it as it lies (2) potentially move it to a place where the ball is in shallower water (at no penalty) and drop it and attempt that underwater shot or (3) take it outside the bunker, no closer to the hole with a one stroke penalty. I'd suggest that in the case of temporary water, with no legal relief from temporary water within the trap, the ball should be allowed to be moved closer to the hole within the trap and placed rather than dropped. Why? It's fair and it removes the idiocy of doing drops that (likely) will only end up rolling back into the soup or (potentially) with the ball plugging. If the whole bunker is underwater, I think the competitor should be allowed to moved the ball out of the bunker, nearest point of relief, no nearer the hole. It's the fair thing to do.

This. Those covering the LPGA have been trying to build Wie up for years and years because the media *****s need marketable stories. Problem was (and is) she can't putt well enough to match the rest of her game. It's only been lately that the commentators have finally addressed what's been holding her back because even they can't ignore the obvious forever.

I doubt any of us are wearing halos, but if Clinton and Tiger can't keep it in their pants, they only make more money for Big Media. Whereas, if Erik can't keep it in his pants, he could cost NBC/Golf Channel an expensive lawsuit and lost advertisers/viewers. That's the difference. The Golf Channel's mistake was deciding to sign a host with "character issues" after ESPN dumped him. That's like a football team that brings in some player with 'character issues' hoping that a new city/new team will magically change their behavior and focus. How often does that work out?

The whole going for a par-4 from the tee is nothing but an effective smoke-screen for the issue at hand. Pro's do it because the reward (sometimes) far exceeds the risk. Good chance for an eagle or maybe getting on ESPN. Miss the green but get in the green-side bunker? Up and down and you've still got your birdie. I do the same at my course. But that has nothing to do with the discussion. They drive for the green because they have a legitimate chance of making the green or leaving themselves a chip shot remaining. Apples and bananas to the discussion, which is that it is better to lay up to the distance you're 'money' at versus forcing a ball close just to be close to leave some 'touch' shot at best and more likely to be in the rough, or behind some tree or other bad stuff. Stats are meaningless unless you can develop a strategy around them. Give me approach shot stats that tell you that being close is better than being farther away is like telling me that being closer to the hole on a putt is better than being farther away on a putt. Big whoop and completely meaningless to developing an effective approach. I'll say it again, giving out stats WITHOUT the stats of the shot before it is meaningless in a discussion of how to plan out a multiple shot strategy. And with the stats you've provided to this point, lost in those stats are what it took to get to the point those shots were executed. C'est la difference. But candidly, not all of this is bad. I love playing against guys that chunk the short shot out of the rough and wonder why that happened or do a decel on that 35 yard 'touch shot' under pressure of competition and wonder why it doesn't happen when it doesn't matter.

Hopefully, we can agree that there is a difference between a full wedge and a full swing. I don't doubt that was your intent when you're talking about a pitch, but just to be clear. The book Caddie Sense is real good read. A bit dry, but full of insight. It is by Michael Carrick, longtime caddie for Tom Kite. He sums up the difference between pro golfers and those he sees in sooooo many pro/am events he's done through the years. Those golfers play the course from tee to green, pro golfers play the course from green to tee. The importance of this is that every golfer (pro or amateur) has their 'magic number' the distance they can repeatedly hit scoring clubs to the target. That's why you see caddies sweating out the layup distance on a long par 5. He is trying to get his player to his magic number as the wedge is a scoring club for a pro or good amateur. The last thing he wants is to put his player at a distance, he is not GREAT at. That's why I said a few posts back, it's that basic. Get the golfer to his best distances, the points he can maximize his ability to score. Same thing for amateurs that want to become better amateurs. Whatever your wedge(s) may be, know what distances are 'money' for you. That the distance you are comfortable from and can hit under tournament pressure. So, my approach is to get to the distances I'm good at with the three wedges I carry, and to rely on the stroke I can make with confidence. Not much different from a basketball player who goes to the spots on the floor he is 'money' with his jump shot. Your approach is: learn the distances you can hit a 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and Full shots for each wedge and how that varies when you open the club face. That's eight distances for each wedge. So, you're hitting close and adjusting your shot to the result and I'm avoiding those touch shots. Said slightly differently, the exception for me is the touch shot and the exception for you is a rather standard distance as you think being closer is better. So tell me ... if closer is better why are the pros laying up longer distances with their wedges? Not in the slightest. The context was: to just look at how well amateurs execute a shot (pitch to the green) without also understanding the risks taken to get to that point is completely worthless. It's about as worthless as talking to someone that claims that most golfers are just about as good hitting a 4 iron as they are a 7 iron ... that kind of worthless.

Thanks for that. No need to discuss any further.

Yeah and I'm sure the "average" golfer does better with a six iron off the tee then with a driver on a par 4 - 435 yard hole. As a golf instructor, is that what you advise your players to do? Do your "stats" take into account what happens when your "average" golfer now tries to hit a 4 iron to get to 35 yards versus a 7 iron to 80 yards? Do they take into account that in executing that longer approach shot to 35 yards, the fairway is more narrow and more likely to be a pitch shot from the rough? Do they take into account the lack of distance control that an "average" golf has with a longer approach shot versus a shorter approach shot? That 35 yard touch shot to a green ... do your stats take into account how that shot holds up under pressure of a match, tournament or league play? Do your stats take into account that bad golfers following a strategy of 'closer is better' have a lot of experience hitting shots that will keep them mired as bad golfers rather than the shots truly needed to improve. It's a vicious cycle. Sure they are better at a shot they hit a lot versus the shot they take less frequently. Then what? What does the "average" amateur shoot for a round? 105? More? Whatever that may be, my advice is definitely NOT meant for them. So, if that is you, please read no further. Hopefully, most golfers that come to this forum have a real interest in getting better. And and the only way to truly get better is to learn course management AND to play the shots required of a better golfer and gain experience executing those shots. Frankly, if a golfer does not have a wedge game he can count on he will NEVER be a really good golfer. Your simple stats may be true, but stats are only helpful if they matter. Your strategy would keep a golfer from being a better golfer as he or she following your advice would avoid hitting full wedge shots to the green and kiss their chance of getting to be a better player bye-bye.

The PGA Tour serves the PGA Players so, while it might be nice, it is unlikely to happen. They want to keep all matters in-house and behind the scenes. Same reason that the PGA Tour resists taking shots away for slow play. Because then it would be all too public for their liking.

At an old job, we had a Corporate league and each year we had a two-club tournament (Putter counted as a club). I used an 8 iron and a 4 iron and putted with the back of the club lefty. The more interesting thing was they guy that kept the league records got curious and checked the stats. He found (over several years) that MOST golfers significantly improved their average that week. The only ones that did not were the single digit golfers (as a group). Obviously, you can't take that idea too far ... but it is amazing how many people try to run the ball up toward a par 5 so that they are stuck with an awkward 35 yard 'feel' shot rather than be back farther and have a full wedge in from a distance they know they're good at. How basic is that?

There is a BIG difference between someone being confident in their viewpoints and someone that acts like the words coming out of their mouth are divine. Erik is the latter. As for the show, I think they made a bad call on the content. They program it as if once-a-month viewers are the norm, who will surf in and be happy they are discussing Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods and Tiger Woods. Gary is knowledgeable and likeable, but it's not that they don't have some good segments and good interviews - it's just not for the knowledgeable golf fan. For example, they had a poll last week wanting to know whether fans that Tiger would make the cut or not ... please.

I carry three wedges and I can turn a 7 iron around and hit it lefty ... so I would go with a 4 hybrid as out of the rough it would be another option. I play a 4 iron because I still like it on par 3's ...

Old thread, I know. But I don't want that last thread to be anyone's takeaway from Rotella's books. His theme is NOT, repeat not: 'play like you don't think your game is worth a damn.' It's about playing with confidence and with the positive expectations of making shots.

Agreed. I guess Pavin and his lieutenants were too busy sweating out those 4 Captain Picks to have time to check to see if the equipment was up to snuff. Not that buying rain gear from a group called Sun Mountain should raise an eyebrow or two. Not to mention they are fugly. Additionally the size of the lettering of the names of the U.S. players on the back is more appropriate for a boxer's warmup gear than golf. To add on to the embarrassment the U.S. bought replacements from a European manufacturer. I wonder what the guy in charge of product design at Sun Mountain will be doing after he updates his resume ... I don't know who made the golf bags but ESPN commented that they were not remotely waterproof either. Article: NEWPORT, Wales (AP) — The Americans have scrapped their rain suits at the Ryder Cup because they were all wet. PGA of America spokesman Julius Mason said Friday that officials went to the merchandise tent during the rain delay at Celtic Manor and snatched up as many suits as they could find. The rain gear ordered by U.S. captain Corey Pavin was made by Sun Mountain. Mason says team officials were disappointed with how they worked, and bought new ones made by ProQuip. Mason says there were only enough for the players and caddies. The new suits have only a Ryder Cup logo, without any special markings for a U.S. uniform. Read more: RN-T.com - US team has to buy new rain gear at Ryder Cup