Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ben Sims on March 07, 2023, 11:00:35 AM
-
The angles thread seems to have run its course. It brings me to a different idea on a related discussion.
What are some common knowledge golf strategy aphorisms and anecdotes you’ve heard or used that turned out to be unhelpful? For the architects, has common knowledge golf strategy ever led to a design decision you regret?
I’ll go first. “When it’s breezy, swing easy.”
This more often leads to a duck hook into gunch for me. I’ve learned to make the same swing in the wind that I do when it’s calm. Just use an extra club or change aim if needed. Swing differently? Not for me.
-
“Never belittle a shot in the middle.” Without going down a rabbit hole not always the best place to be.
-
That uphill putts are always easier. It depends on the situation. A straight putt is easier to hole going downhill, although as you introduce break the downhill ones quickly become more difficult. An uphill putt is usually easier not to three putt, but often more difficult to make.
That you should lay up to 100 yards if you can’t reach the green. Decade has pretty much disproven this one (absent trouble around the green of course).
-
"If stuck between clubs, take the smaller number and swing easy."
While I agree with taking more club, I don't agree with changing one's tempo in hopes of executing the shot. Unless you practice this on the regular, better to choke down and take your normal swing to achieve the same result. That was always my "go to" with good players I caddied for, as rarely do amateurs consistently practice or play 80% or 90% shots, unless your talking inside 60 yards. But if you're undecided between a 7 and 6 iron or 8 and 7, take the lower number, choke down and play the shot with your normal swing tempo. You can thank me later. LOL! ;D
-
That you should lay up to 100 yards if you can’t reach the green. Decade has pretty much disproven this one (absent trouble around the green of course).
This is as good an example as any that "common knowledge" is irrelevant to some segment of golfers because everyone's skills are different.
For me, laying up to 100 yards is still much better than leaving myself 70, because I don't carry any club less than a pitching wedge, and I have a mental block to the extent that I'm very likely to miss the green entirely from 70 yards, which I won't do as often from 100. And I promise you I'm not the only one who has trouble from that distance.
Sure, I should get new wedges, and practice. But until I do, avoiding 70 yards is good strategy. If I can get myself within 30 or 40, and chip, that's another story entirely, I'm really good at that.
But the most common knowledge of all is that "a man has to know his limitations".
-
That you should lay up to 100 yards if you can’t reach the green. Decade has pretty much disproven this one (absent trouble around the green of course).
Scott is, at best, THIRD in that line. The list of who "disproved" that starts and ends with Mark Broadie… and IF you extend beyond that, sorry, Scott's not even second.
My own addition to this list will be how players allot their practice time: the majority should NOT be on the short game. GIR is King, and absent a glaring weakness, you should work on the skills that leads to more GIR. In the short term, short game is the quickest way to lower scores, but on the whole, the best long-term strategy is to improve the driving and approach shots (with customization for the length of typical approach shots you face) and to hit more greens (and hit it a tiny bit closer, too).
-
I'll second this notion by Tom with a big thumbs up.
My par 5 (and long par 4) scoring improved when I started laying back in these situations because my 25-75 yard game is general has always been sketchy with half swing wedge shots off tight lies. Then add in the reduced risk of not getting into bunkers that are 30-40 yards shorts of the green and it was a no-brainer for me.
-
My own addition to this list will be how players allot their practice time: the majority should NOT be on the short game. GIR is King, and absent a glaring weakness, you should work on the skills that leads to more GIR. In the short term, short game is the quickest way to lower scores, but on the whole, the best long-term strategy is to improve the driving and approach shots (with customization for the length of typical approach shots you face) and to hit more greens (and hit it a tiny bit closer, too).
I'll second that, Erik! I'll never forget, when someone from the media queried Jack Nicklaus' back in the 70's as to what the solution was to solving his short game struggles, his reply was to "hit more greens in regulation."
-
I'll never forget, when someone from the media queried Jack Nicklaus' back in the 70's as to what the solution was to solving his short game struggles, his reply was to "hit more greens in regulation."
Yeah, but that was also sort of an admission that he didn't have that great of a short game and didn't have confidence it would improve that much. And a realization that sometimes the way to improve is by strengthening your strengths, not eliminating your weaknesses.
Also, a couple of years after that, Jack went to Phil Rodgers to work on his short game, and won a couple more majors. I wonder if he hit more greens in regulation?
-
Yeah, but that was also sort of an admission that he didn't have that great of a short game and didn't have confidence it would improve that much. And a realization that sometimes the way to improve is by strengthening your strengths, not eliminating your weaknesses.
Also, a couple of years after that, Jack went to Phil Rodgers to work on his short game, and won a couple more majors. I wonder if he hit more greens in regulation?
Agree with your first statement and would add to your second the reason Jack won the U.S. Open and PGA Championship in 1980 was due to the time and work he put in with Phil Rodgers on his short game. I don't think he wins either without that, as his confidence hit a low point in 1979.
-
Also, a couple of years after that, Jack went to Phil Rodgers to work on his short game, and won a couple more majors. I wonder if he hit more greens in regulation?
This Sports Illustrated Article from April, 1980 (Before Jack won his US Open and PGA) provides an interesting glimpse:
https://vault.si.com/vault/1980/04/07/a-little-help-from-a-friend-when-jack-nicklaus-finally-saw-that-his-short-game-needed-work-he-called-in-phil-rodgers-who-even-as-a-fellow-rookie-in-1962-had-more-shots-than-jack-did
-
I'll second this notion by Tom with a big thumbs up.
Statistically, you're both in a fairly small minority. Most golfers (and I don't mean 51% or anything like that, I mean a LOT) hit it closer on average and score better on average when they hit it closer to the green. It doesn't matter how thin you slice it (so long as it's still statistically significant): "10 handicaps from California who are 40 to 45 years old," etc., it holds up.
If you both played enough golf… you should spend 30 minutes sometime figuring out how to hit a 70-yard shot. It'd serve you well. ;)
-
I thought the invention of gap wedges, etc. sort of took the "a full swing from 100 yards is better than a partial swing from 70" idea back out of play.
-
It's funny because 30 years ago the common knowledge was that you should lay back to a full wedge distance (say 100 yards) and analysis proved otherwise (first for tour-level players and then for others as well).
-
I'll second this notion by Tom with a big thumbs up.
Statistically, you're both in a fairly small minority. Most golfers (and I don't mean 51% or anything like that, I mean a LOT) hit it closer on average and score better on average when they hit it closer to the green. It doesn't matter how thin you slice it (so long as it's still statistically significant): "10 handicaps from California who are 40 to 45 years old," etc., it holds up.
If you both played enough golf… you should spend 30 minutes sometime figuring out how to hit a 70-yard shot. It'd serve you well. ;)
I've tried a variety of options including lob wedge, sand wedge, but I've found full swings with those clubs very problematic off tight lies with both fat and thin shots. So I settled on partial swings with pitching wedge or 9 iron with lower ball flights, but that's where angles really come into play as attempting to hit those shots over bunkers or water get very dicey
Probably not coincidentally, I don't mind that distance near as much when I'm in light rough with the ball sitting up a bit, but i'll admit i find it difficult to intentionally aim to miss the green to find it! :)
P.S. To your data, I have two playing buddies (also high cappers) who excel in that range with those shots..
-
The closer the better for me. I don’t have a “perfect distance.” I don’t even have a good distance.
-
When a caddie points to a spot on the green and tells me to aim there, it only helps marginally. I have to see the putt curve in my head. So aiming at a spot isn't that helpful.
-
I've tried a variety of options including lob wedge, sand wedge, but I've found full swings with those clubs very problematic off tight lies with both fat and thin shots. So I settled on partial swings with pitching wedge or 9 iron with lower ball flights, but that's where angles really come into play as attempting to hit those shots over bunkers or water get very dicey
Yeah, the thing about averages is… that it alone doesn't tell how wide the spread can be, or what the standard deviation is. You might be a few out, and that's to be expected of course.
-
Never up, never in…as I ram my rare decent birdie putt 6 feet by.
-
I could be mistaken but I thought the USGA commissioned a study which indicated that the grain of the grass did not affect putts.
-
I'm going to gadfly a few of the things that have come up here... in no particular order...
When a caddie points to a spot on the green and tells me to aim there, it only helps marginally. I have to see the putt curve in my head. So aiming at a spot isn't that helpful.
TW, as a lifelong looper just about finished with his trade, it took me more than two decades - from teen youth to my 30s - to understand and bring together the correct, particular visualization that a particular golfer needs. That starts/started from my internal process for any putt on any course which was/has been to read the putt from the cup backwards...eg. "how is the flat entry spot on the cup situated, in relation to the general slopes feeding towards it?"...once I see that, where it goes in perfectly straight, then I just build the "putt" backwards to the player...eg...how does it get to this spot...back to this spot...back to the player...? The only thing I think I ever was really doing for a player on green reading is matching that path/arc (of spots, from cup back to player) to a mind meld of what the speed ought to be.
How do you do that; translate the subtleties that you know from 5000 samples into a speed for today's player X? For a tradesmen like me, it IS the practical magic and only green reading property worth anything...and so when I would read a putt for you, I might have indeed pointed to some spot, short, long or near the cup, but I would've told you what description of foot-speed it should've have been..."it should be slowing down to a foot here...almost out of gas here... it's got to have enough to beat this hill and 5 more feet...you've got to have the courage to roll it firmly up here, so it can swoop down to a place where it can go in..."
There are literally 101 reasons why, though sometimes a poor mans grind/hustle, I have been remarkably and uniquely enriched by my activities lo' these 42 years, and one of the last remaining of those reasons is to genuinely meld with a player, familiar or new guest stranger - on translating the aesthetics of the putting feel to any particular putt by any particular player on a golf course, no less one I know well. And that green reading, no what its objective quality, is what drew me deeper from merely golf to its architecture and all that goes into the delightful, amusing recreation that culminates on that putting green.
Last thing TW, how about putts that aren't read to a spot outside the hole, but are nuances (verbal, pointed or both) of something aimed to one small edge of the cup...like "inside right"..."right/left of center"... "right edge"? Are such indications also of little use to you...or is it just the bigger breakers you're referencing?
-
Here is one that I think I made up...
The wrong club hit well is better than the right club hit poorly.. So, don't overthink choosing the right club. Just hit whatever club you choose well.
-
Here is one that I think I made up...
The wrong club hit well is better than the right club hit poorly.. So, don't overthink choosing the right club. Just hit whatever club you choose well.
I very rarely think that when I realise that I have just hit 6 iron well when I intended to hit 9 iron.....
-
I'm very likely to miss the green entirely from 70 yards, which I won't do as often from 100.
Tom, do you think this preference ever shows up in your designs? Maybe that explains the lack of 70-yard par 3's on your courses. ;D But really, do you think you have a tendency to make sure there's always a layup spot at 100 yards while being less concerned about what happens from 50-70, or something like that?
-
I could be mistaken but I thought the USGA commissioned a study which indicated that the grain of the grass did not affect putts.
the study also noted don't play on bermuda during late afternoons...
-
the study also noted don't play on bermuda during late afternoons...
Grain doesn't affect break much. It affects speed, for sure: uphill into-the-grain putts play slower on super grainy greens than they would without grain, and downhill with-the-grain putts play faster. Grain itself does not affect break much at all. Something like 1/2" over 20' or so. Mark Sweeney could tell you the actual number, but I remember it being nearly negligible.
-
I could be mistaken but I thought the USGA commissioned a study which indicated that the grain of the grass did not affect putts.
If they did they should get their money back. I know Erik is peddling the line that grain doesn't affect the break and instead affects the speed but the two go hand in hand. That's why when you pick a line you should do so knowing how hard you're going to hit it.
A pal of mine once played in a pro-am with Sandy Lyle and asked Sandy to read a 3 foot putt for him. Sandy suggested just inside the right edge. My friend aimed just inside the right edge and missed two inches to the left causing Sandy to apologise profusely saying he forgot that amateurs generally don't rap their putts as hard as the pro's.
Niall
-
the study also noted don't play on bermuda during late afternoons...
Grain doesn't affect break much. It affects speed, for sure: uphill into-the-grain putts play slower on super grainy greens than they would without grain, and downhill with-the-grain putts play faster. Grain itself does not affect break much at all. Something like 1/2" over 20' or so. Mark Sweeney could tell you the actual number, but I remember it being nearly negligible.
Erik, thank you for this clarification. Mark would indeed be the go-to.
-
FWIW, I used to be very good at reading greens, and I never really factored in grain at all.
It was certainly more of a factor on older warm-season turf, but I didn't play that many rounds on such greens, and most of those courses didn't have very interesting greens to start with.
-
I'm going to gadfly a few of the things that have come up here... in no particular order...
it took me more than two decades - from teen youth to my 30s - to understand and bring together the correct, particular visualization that a particular golfer needs. That starts/started from my internal process for any putt on any course which was/has been to read the putt from the cup backwards...eg. "how is the flat entry spot on the cup situated, in relation to the general slopes feeding towards it?"...once I see that, where it goes in perfectly straight, then I just build the "putt" backwards to the player...eg...how does it get to this spot...back to this spot...back to the player...? The only thing I think I ever was really doing for a player on green reading is matching that path/arc (of spots, from cup back to player) to a mind meld of what the speed ought to be.
How do you do that; translate the subtleties that you know from 5000 samples into a speed for today's player X? For a tradesmen like me, it IS the practical magic and only green reading property worth anything...and so when I would read a putt for you, I might have indeed pointed to some spot, short, long or near the cup, but I would've told you what description of foot-speed it should've have been..."it should be slowing down to a foot here...almost out of gas here... it's got to have enough to beat this hill and 5 more feet...you've got to have the courage to roll it firmly up here, so it can swoop down to a place where it can go in..."
That sort of caddy helps me make more putts, but when on my own, I agree with Bob Rotella, that process is making putting way too complicated
-
I could be mistaken but I thought the USGA commissioned a study which indicated that the grain of the grass did not affect putts.
If they did they should get their money back. I know Erik is peddling the line that grain doesn't affect the break and instead affects the speed but the two go hand in hand. That's why when you pick a line you should do so knowing how hard you're going to hit it.
A pal of mine once played in a pro-am with Sandy Lyle and asked Sandy to read a 3 foot putt for him. Sandy suggested just inside the right edge. My friend aimed just inside the right edge and missed two inches to the left causing Sandy to apologise profusely saying he forgot that amateurs generally don't rap their putts as hard as the pro's.
Niall
I'm surprised Sandy took the blame, LOL. I have played in pro-ams and on occasion, the pro reading the putt had it half backwards, i.e., breaking right when I read left. I shoot it off to the idea that they really didn't care all that much, even if maybe my putt might affect their comparably meager pro am day payout. I did see a few really grind with their ams on a later hole when they realized the putt was really necessary for team score and payout.
-
the study also noted don't play on bermuda during late afternoons...
Grain doesn't affect break much. It affects speed, for sure: uphill into-the-grain putts play slower on super grainy greens than they would without grain, and downhill with-the-grain putts play faster. Grain itself does not affect break much at all. Something like 1/2" over 20' or so. Mark Sweeney could tell you the actual number, but I remember it being nearly negligible.
Grain does affect break on Bermuda greens...
-
If they did they should get their money back. I know Erik is peddling the line that grain doesn't affect the break and instead affects the speed but the two go hand in hand. That's why when you pick a line you should do so knowing how hard you're going to hit it.
On a cross-grain putt… the effects on speed are basically nil, and that's the direction where people assume that the grain has the most effect. It's also, as I said before, quite small.
FWIW, I used to be very good at reading greens, and I never really factored in grain at all.
It's even less of a factor as green speeds get higher.
Grain does affect break on Bermuda greens...
No, it doesn't much at all.
-
I'm going to gadfly a few of the things that have come up here... in no particular order...
When a caddie points to a spot on the green and tells me to aim there, it only helps marginally. I have to see the putt curve in my head. So aiming at a spot isn't that helpful.
Last thing TW, how about putts that aren't read to a spot outside the hole, but are nuances (verbal, pointed or both) of something aimed to one small edge of the cup...like "inside right"..."right/left of center"... "right edge"? Are such indications also of little use to you...or is it just the bigger breakers you're referencing?
Pointing to a spot on a five-footer is fine. It isn't helpful for me on a 10 footer or more.
-
I'm very likely to miss the green entirely from 70 yards, which I won't do as often from 100.
Tom, do you think this preference ever shows up in your designs? Maybe that explains the lack of 70-yard par 3's on your courses. ;D But really, do you think you have a tendency to make sure there's always a layup spot at 100 yards while being less concerned about what happens from 50-70, or something like that?
Well, maybe? But you're assuming I would make it easier for myself.
When I worked on the Stadium course at PGA West for Mr. Dye, we purposely tried to take away the 100-yard layup on short par-4's and par-5's by doing things in that zone that made the players uncomfortable. We would put a cross bunker there, or make the fairway stop at 120 and pick up again at 80, or make it lower so that the green was semi-blind, to try and take away their comfort zone.
Now that the preferred strategy is to get as close to the green as possible, I favor bunkers 20 to 60 yards short of the green, since numerous Tour players have told me, "We are no better at that shot than you are." Of course, a Tour pro will rarely miss in that zone . . . if they're not sure they are getting over everything, it's one of the rare times you will see them lay up so they don't leave themselves the 50-yard bunker shot. But the thought is there, anyway.
I've only been thinking about that for the past five years, though, so I don't know that you would find it in the majority of my work. My fundamental thought on holes of that length is to reward players for a straight shot, even if they can't quite get to the green, but punish the guy who could have reached it and misses badly off line. Generally, you do that with a long and narrow green, and you'll see a lot of those on my par-5's.
-
I want to reiterate what Erik and Matt have shared above. If you're truly averaging lower scores from 100 yards than something shorter than 100 yards, you are in a very, very small sliver of outliers.
-
I want to reiterate what Erik and Matt have shared above. If you're truly averaging lower scores from 100 yards than something shorter than 100 yards, you are in a very, very small sliver of outliers.
Jeff:
ON AVERAGE, you are certainly right. On average, the closer you are, the better you'll do.
But in practice, do you not think that most golfers have some particular yardage that they struggle from, from a confidence perspective? Hell, even Tour pros do: they are much more dialed in than we are, but they seem to be better when they have a "perfect yardage" for their approach [say 136 for their nine iron] than when they are three yards short of it.
For those of us who are not that good, the confidence gaps are probably a little wider.
-
I'm very likely to miss the green entirely from 70 yards, which I won't do as often from 100.
Tom, do you think this preference ever shows up in your designs? Maybe that explains the lack of 70-yard par 3's on your courses. ;D But really, do you think you have a tendency to make sure there's always a layup spot at 100 yards while being less concerned about what happens from 50-70, or something like that?
Now that the preferred strategy is to get as close to the green as possible, I favor bunkers 20 to 60 yards short of the green, since numerous Tour players have told me, "We are no better at that shot than you are." Of course, a Tour pro will rarely miss in that zone . . . if they're not sure they are getting over everything, it's one of the rare times you will see them lay up so they don't leave themselves the 50-yard bunker shot. But the thought is there, anyway.
I've only been thinking about that for the past five years, though, so I don't know that you would find it in the majority of my work. My fundamental thought on holes of that length is to reward players for a straight shot, even if they can't quite get to the green, but punish the guy who could have reached it and misses badly off line. Generally, you do that with a long and narrow green, and you'll see a lot of those on my par-5's.
At CommonGround there are a number of hazards affecting “layup” shots. They aren’t universally the same in scope, affect, or position. There are mounds and bunkers, centerline and cross. And they vary from 40-ish yards all the way to 120 yards (the bunker on 13) from the green. If you and the guys had a plan or pattern for what kinds of shot or what kind of player to focus on in challenging the layups at CG, I can’t find one.
-
I want to reiterate what Erik and Matt have shared above. If you're truly averaging lower scores from 100 yards than something shorter than 100 yards, you are in a very, very small sliver of outliers.
But in practice, do you not think that most golfers have some particular yardage that they struggle from, from a confidence perspective? Hell, even Tour pros do: they are much more dialed in than we are, but they seem to be better when they have a "perfect yardage" for their approach [say 136 for their nine iron] than when they are three yards short of it.
Tom,
That's a good question. Personally, I don't have a yardage I think of as "bad" or something I struggle from more than other yardages (especially sub 120y). Obviously when a yardage is in the gaps between clubs, it can create confusion and require a deeper skill set to be proficient. I'm sure there is some data out there available to support what Erik is saying in regards to most amateur golfers. I can't provide it but I'm guessing it exists.
At the higher end competitive level it is pretty well understood now that the closer you are to the hole, the better (with obvious exceptions). I would imagine that applies to all golfers, as you said, "ON AVERAGE". I can certainly understand the feeling of comfortability for individual players at different yardages. I would be curious to see stats that show "most golfers" score lower from longer distances than yardages they "struggle" from. I'm sure there would be anecdotal examples but I'd guess they are in a small group of outliers as I said above. I could certainly be wrong as I am basing this off what I have learned from the data guys in golf.
-
But in practice, do you not think that most golfers have some particular yardage that they struggle from, from a confidence perspective?
So… even though we can all name some exceptions, oftentimes even if you think YOU are an exception, you're really not if you actually track your rounds and shots and so on. People seemingly forget the bad shots they hit from 100 yards and remember the bad ones they hit from 70 (because they think they're uncomfortable from that range), or whatever. But most people still hold closer to the "closer = closer" rule than even they think.
Anyway… I tried to find amateurs in one of the databases who have a lot of shots from 100 to 50 yards in the fairway (because you don't want to count a player who has a bunch of shots from 95-100, then a gap from 95-75 with only like three shots total — you want a large enough sample size), and was able to find fourteen golfers pretty quickly ranging from a +1 to a 13. My criteria was basically no gaps of more than 3 yards without 3+ shots from any of the in-between yardages (i.e. 10 shots from 78, 1 from 79, 1 from 80, 2 from 81, 1 from 82, then 10 from 83… would fail). Many had 5-10+ shots from 44+ of the 51 yardages.
All but one exhibited a pretty smooth line for the proximity. One player didn't… he had a jump in his proximity around 65 yards. When I looked at his data and almost all of his shots were on a hole with water short and left, so he often hit it long/right. It was about a 310-yard hole, so he laid up near the end of the fairway and so I think (he's a low handicapper, though not the +1) he was intentionally playing away from the hole.
It's only 14 golfers, so I'm not saying it doesn't exist (and never would, as exceptions exist in almost anything)… but, generally, no.
What Tom said is true, of course, that players feel better about "157" if that's a great yardage for them, than "160." But those gaps don't matter quite as much to amateurs… or perhaps they still do, but if 95 is a great yardage for them, a 90-yard shot might play 95 if it's into a little wind or slightly uphill or something. So as a one-off, you'll hear from Tour players that the calculated yardage wasn't a great fit for them… but we don't know that about amateurs when they're playing.
Edit: minimal smoothing to the lines, because for example a yardage where the player hit one bad shot out of three can cause a "bump" in that yardage, but if the yardage one yard short and one yard long of it doesn't have that one truly bad shot… it's still a pretty smooth progression. But, yes, there was some smoothing. Otherwise, you'd have little jumps all over the place until the player hit many, many, many shots from literally every yardage.
-
If they did they should get their money back. I know Erik is peddling the line that grain doesn't affect the break and instead affects the speed but the two go hand in hand. That's why when you pick a line you should do so knowing how hard you're going to hit it.
On a cross-grain putt… the effects on speed are basically nil, and that's the direction where people assume that the grain has the most effect. It's also, as I said before, quite small.
FWIW, I used to be very good at reading greens, and I never really factored in grain at all.
It's even less of a factor as green speeds get higher.
Grain does affect break on Bermuda greens...
No, it doesn't much at all.
Erik, how about older Bermuda greens? How about the affect during the last couple first vs the first couple feet?
-
Erik, how about older Bermuda greens? How about the affect during the last couple first vs the first couple feet?
Nope. Tested repeatedly by Mark Sweeney on the super-grainy greens at Kapalua/Sony. Very little (nearly negligible) effect on break.
-
Erik, how about older Bermuda greens? How about the affect during the last couple first vs the first couple feet?
Nope. Tested repeatedly by Mark Sweeney on the super-grainy greens at Kapalua/Sony. Very little (nearly negligible) effect on break.
Haven't looked into him enough, but I wouldn't interpret this interview as negligible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=libuU2OFbRg&t=548s
-
I play lots of local and state senior tournaments in NC, and now it’s mostly, of course on Bermuda greens. While grain varies a bit from course to course, the impact of grain on the BREAK of a putt is generally overrated, while the impact of grain on the SPEED of a putt is at least sometime underrated. Downhill/down grain is a big deal, as is uphill and into the grain, and when you see a really terrible putt on Bermuda greens, it’s ALWAYS one of those two situations, usually downhill down grain.
Grain on Bermuda greens just won’t overcome slope and change or cancel break, though we love to tell ourselves that. Putts on Bermuda greens that don’t go in and break with the grain to the low side weren’t going in anyway because the speed wasn’t right. Grain is a much better excuse for a bad putt than operator error.
There IS an issue with Bermuda greens, though, which is grain changes along the line of a putt that change the speed once or more during the roll. You could see this very clearly on the aerial views at Sawgrass, and it makes for tough putting.
One personal note: I had the same caddie all three days on a trip to Streamsong, and he was excellent, including at reading putts. He never said the word “grain” in 54 holes, and neither did the other three caddies that we played with. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t factoring it in, but I don’t think it was much.
I think Mark Sweeney has said that all the stuff about putts breaking to the mountain or the pond or the clubhouse or whatever is BS; there’s gravity, and nothing else matters much, including grain.
-
Yeah, but that was also sort of an admission that he didn't have that great of a short game and didn't have confidence it would improve that much. And a realization that sometimes the way to improve is by strengthening your strengths, not eliminating your weaknesses.
Also, a couple of years after that, Jack went to Phil Rodgers to work on his short game, and won a couple more majors. I wonder if he hit more greens in regulation?
Agree with your first statement and would add to your second the reason Jack won the U.S. Open and PGA Championship in 1980 was due to the time and work he put in with Phil Rodgers on his short game. I don't think he wins either without that, as his confidence hit a low point in 1979.
I don’t dispute that Nicklaus, as ANY golfer would, benefited from his work with Rodgers and a better wedge and short game.
But if you say that he wouldn’t have won without that, it’s a BIG statement, given that we’re talking about a guy who had already won 15 majors at that point. At least to me, even if Nicklaus said that it was the work with Rodgers, it may be that the real impact was rededicating himself to practicing.
I think I’d have to see some stats about those two tournaments before I’d fully buy into the idea that Nicklaus won in a way other that what he was best at his whole career; being really long off the tee, and hitting it close on his approach shots. At the Open, he shot 63 the first day, 68 the last day, and set a tournament scoring record. I suspect most of that was more of the same Nicklaus formula, rather than scrambling. I’m willing to be wrong, but I’ll have to see it.
-
Haven't looked into him enough, but I wouldn't interpret this interview as negligible.
He is talking about wind at first. He says about grain "It's usually not the impact people think it is. The primary difference is the uphill/downhill stimp is very different. At Kapalua the uphill would feel like a 9, and the downhill would feel like a 12."
This is what I have been saying this whole time. Across the grain, there's like 1/2" of difference on a 20-footer due to grain. The situations where the grain is the opposite direction of the break that he talks about are pretty rare. We talked about it at an AimPoint gathering one time at Kiawah Island.
-
Haven't looked into him enough, but I wouldn't interpret this interview as negligible.
He is talking about wind at first. He says about grain "It's usually not the impact people think it is. The primary difference is the uphill/downhill stimp is very different. At Kapalua the uphill would feel like a 9, and the downhill would feel like a 12."
This is what I have been saying this whole time. Across the grain, there's like 1/2" of difference on a 20-footer due to grain. The situations where the grain is the opposite direction of the break that he talks about are pretty rare. We talked about it at an AimPoint gathering one time at Kiawah Island.
What's the static speed in determining? a 20 footer has speed to pass the hole say 3 feet every time? Grain is going to affect the putt more as it loses speed, no? For a numbers guy to call a 1/2 inch negligible is kind of surprising. I won't put words in your mouth, but that's surprising to hear that 12% of the hole doesn't mean all that much in making your point.
-
What's the static speed in determining?
I'm not sure what you're asking.
a 20 footer has speed to pass the hole say 3 feet every time?
AimPoint typically likes to see a putt go about 18" past the hole. I'm also not sure why this is a question, or what you're asking here, either.
Grain is going to affect the putt more as it loses speed, no?
Why does it matter how much a putt breaks in the part of the putt that should be past the hole? It either went in at that point or already missed.
For a numbers guy to call a 1/2 inch negligible is kind of surprising. I won't put words in your mouth, but that's surprising to hear that 12% of the hole doesn't mean all that much in making your point.
On a putt that breaks 3'… it's < 1.4%. On a 20' putt, a half an inch is also… 0.119°. It's a very small amount.
-
Regarding the yardage question, I think that it may have some differences regionally.
In the Midwest, the closer I am to the green, the better I'm going to do. Getting clean contact isn't an issue at all. It's like hitting off of a mat.
But if you put me at LACC or Memorial Park, I would struggle a lot with shots in the 30-70 yard range out of the fairway. Maybe I'd get used to it if I played there all the time, but for a visitor, it's tough. I'd be seeking to have a shot with a full swing instead of a partial one in those conditions.
-
"At Kapalua the uphill would feel like a 9, and the downhill would feel like a 12."
When the Plantation Course at Kapalua opened I asked Peter Jacobsen what he thought of it, and he said it was hard to tell because the downhill putts were about a 10, and the uphill putts were about a 5. I'm sure he was exaggerating a little bit, but he thought the difference was huge. Of course, that is more about the slope than about the grain. TOUR pros are no longer used to having to hit putts on severely uphill greens.
-
In the Midwest, the closer I am to the green, the better I'm going to do. Getting clean contact isn't an issue at all. It's like hitting off of a mat.
But if you put me at LACC or Memorial Park, I would struggle a lot with shots in the 30-70 yard range out of the fairway. Maybe I'd get used to it if I played there all the time, but for a visitor, it's tough. I'd be seeking to have a shot with a full swing instead of a partial one in those conditions.
That's interesting. I'd guess it's mostly a matter of confidence.
Years ago I listened to Mike Holder debate with one of his former players, Bob Tway, about what sort of grass to use on the fairways at Karsten Creek. The coach favored one of the new zoysiagrasses, because the lies were so good. Tway responded that he would not want to get used to those perfect lies, and then have to go play a wedge shot from a downhill lie on Poa annua. He favored something that made him learn to pick the ball cleanly.
-
What's the static speed in determining?
I'm not sure what you're asking.
a 20 footer has speed to pass the hole say 3 feet every time?
AimPoint typically likes to see a putt go about 18" past the hole. I'm also not sure why this is a question, or what you're asking here, either.
Grain is going to affect the putt more as it loses speed, no?
Why does it matter how much a putt breaks in the part of the putt that should be past the hole? It either went in at that point or already missed.
For a numbers guy to call a 1/2 inch negligible is kind of surprising. I won't put words in your mouth, but that's surprising to hear that 12% of the hole doesn't mean all that much in making your point.
On a putt that breaks 3'… it's < 1.4%. On a 20' putt, a half an inch is also… 0.119°. It's a very small amount.
I'm trying to get a feel for how the actual testing. The gist of what I'm saying is based on my experience, and most others (I'm in AZ with grainy Bermuda greens .. but grew up on Poa) is that grain will have more affect as putts start to slow down. I get Aimpoint wants robotic putting .. 18 inches past the hole, etc, etc. For someone who doesn't think that way, it's important to know where the grain affect is happening in the putt. Clearly it's more as the the ball is losing momentum than it is when it's struck, so it makes me very curious on the testing. Maybe we won't get on the same page, and that's cool. Every situation is going to be different, it just strikes me that everything I've known and some of the best putters I've ever seen have known is basically out the window according to Aimpoint.
-
I'm trying to get a feel for how the actual testing. The gist of what I'm saying is based on my experience, and most others (I'm in AZ with grainy Bermuda greens .. but grew up on Poa) is that grain will have more affect as putts start to slow down.
Your experience isn't reality. Golfers think they see balls on poa or bent greens "break more" as the putt slows down. And it does… but it's more a matter of acceleration and time. The grain doesn't really increase this much. (Putts accelerate downhill, plus the putt covers the last 3' in more time than it covers the first 3').
The difference is how much that varies on "grainy" greens versus non-grainy greens. And that difference is not much at all.
I get Aimpoint wants robotic putting
No. You've misunderstood that part.
For someone who doesn't think that way, it's important to know where the grain affect is happening in the putt.
It affects it — albeit very, very little — the whole putt.
Clearly it's more as the the ball is losing momentum than it is when it's struck
That's true of "break" too.
Maybe we won't get on the same page, and that's cool.
It's not about getting on the same page. It's about you valuing what you think you see over what are basically facts.
Here's the deal, in a nutshell.
Mark would measure a green every cm with lasers that were accurate to a millimeter, and his mathematical model could predict the path of a putt hit everywhere at any speed to any distance. The model just assumed a uniform surface (i.e. no grain), and when he tested his model against the grainiest greens… he found that it was off only about 1/2" on a 20' putt across the grainiest greens (I think a 2.5% slope IIRC).
Every situation is going to be different, it just strikes me that everything I've known and some of the best putters I've ever seen have known is basically out the window according to Aimpoint.
That's the thing with advancements, science, etc. And kinda the point of this topic: a lot of what people think is true, it turns out, is not.
-
I'm trying to get a feel for how the actual testing. The gist of what I'm saying is based on my experience, and most others (I'm in AZ with grainy Bermuda greens .. but grew up on Poa) is that grain will have more affect as putts start to slow down.
Your experience isn't reality. Golfers think they see balls on poa or bent greens "break more" as the putt slows down. And it does… but it's more a matter of acceleration and time. The grain doesn't really increase this much. (Putts accelerate downhill, plus the putt covers the last 3' in more time than it covers the first 3').
The difference is how much that varies on "grainy" greens versus non-grainy greens. And that difference is not much at all.
I get Aimpoint wants robotic putting
No. You've misunderstood that part.
For someone who doesn't think that way, it's important to know where the grain affect is happening in the putt.
It affects it — albeit very, very little — the whole putt.
Clearly it's more as the the ball is losing momentum than it is when it's struck
That's true of "break" too.
Maybe we won't get on the same page, and that's cool.
It's not about getting on the same page. It's about you valuing what you think you see over what are basically facts.
Here's the deal, in a nutshell.
Mark would measure a green every cm with lasers that were accurate to a millimeter, and his mathematical model could predict the path of a putt hit everywhere at any speed to any distance. The model just assumed a uniform surface (i.e. no grain), and when he tested his model against the grainiest greens… he found that it was off only about 1/2" on a 20' putt across the grainiest greens (I think a 2.5% slope IIRC).
Every situation is going to be different, it just strikes me that everything I've known and some of the best putters I've ever seen have known is basically out the window according to Aimpoint.
That's the thing with advancements, science, etc. And kinda the point of this topic: a lot of what people think is true, it turns out, is not.
If it's one thing I've learned the last few years, it's always question the science.
-
If it's one thing I've learned the last few years, it's always question the science.
But experience and anecdata, that's the stuff you lean on! :P
-
If it's one thing I've learned the last few years, it's always question the science.
But experience and anecdata, that's the stuff you lean on! :P
Do you somehow think I was coming at your personally?
-
Do you somehow think I was coming at your personally?
No. Do you somehow think I was being super serious or something, emoji and all?
-
That you should lay up to 100 yards if you can’t reach the green. Decade has pretty much disproven this one (absent trouble around the green of course).
Scott is, at best, THIRD in that line. The list of who "disproved" that starts and ends with Mark Broadie… and IF you extend beyond that, sorry, Scott's not even second.
My own addition to this list will be how players allot their practice time: the majority should NOT be on the short game. GIR is King, and absent a glaring weakness, you should work on the skills that leads to more GIR. In the short term, short game is the quickest way to lower scores, but on the whole, the best long-term strategy is to improve the driving and approach shots (with customization for the length of typical approach shots you face) and to hit more greens (and hit it a tiny bit closer, too).
LOTS of club players having glaring weaknesses, though…
More than Broadie, Fawcett, et al. care to discuss. They are outliers, but they are legion.
I used to make a modest living off them. [size=78%]The “low single digit” group has quite a few, I can tell you for certain. [/size] ;)
I would love to see a study of those players. The bell curve outliers. If you add up the two ends of the bell curve, that is hundreds of thousands if not millions of golfers.
-
I would love to see a study of those players. The bell curve outliers. If you add up the two ends of the bell curve, that is hundreds of thousands if not millions of golfers.
They're still a pretty small minority. "Common knowledge" should generally apply to the majority, or at least a large minority.
-
That you should lay up to 100 yards if you can’t reach the green. Decade has pretty much disproven this one (absent trouble around the green of course).
Scott is, at best, THIRD in that line. The list of who "disproved" that starts and ends with Mark Broadie… and IF you extend beyond that, sorry, Scott's not even second.
Dave Pelz preached this in the 90's at the latest.
-
That you should lay up to 100 yards if you can’t reach the green. Decade has pretty much disproven this one (absent trouble around the green of course).
Scott is, at best, THIRD in that line. The list of who "disproved" that starts and ends with Mark Broadie… and IF you extend beyond that, sorry, Scott's not even second.
Dave Pelz preached this in the 90's at the latest.
That's what I thought as well.
-
In the Midwest, the closer I am to the green, the better I'm going to do. Getting clean contact isn't an issue at all. It's like hitting off of a mat.
But if you put me at LACC or Memorial Park, I would struggle a lot with shots in the 30-70 yard range out of the fairway. Maybe I'd get used to it if I played there all the time, but for a visitor, it's tough. I'd be seeking to have a shot with a full swing instead of a partial one in those conditions.
That's interesting. I'd guess it's mostly a matter of confidence.
Years ago I listened to Mike Holder debate with one of his former players, Bob Tway, about what sort of grass to use on the fairways at Karsten Creek. The coach favored one of the new zoysiagrasses, because the lies were so good. Tway responded that he would not want to get used to those perfect lies, and then have to go play a wedge shot from a downhill lie on Poa annua. He favored something that made him learn to pick the ball cleanly.
We know who won that argument. :P
Having played a lot in Kansas on Zoysia, and a few rounds at Karsten Creek I agree with Tway. It's like hitting off tall range mats.
It's the hacker's best friend. Every high handicapper I knew there could scoop their tree wood happily and never worry about hitting the ground behind the ball.