Originally Posted by Everlastrr
There is nothing precise in that statement. Sub-optimal would be more apt description.
- Sub-optimal because you are more likely to not to be able to hit the ideal trajectory.
- Sub-optimal because you cannot take full advantage of the best lie as often by having to play it back or forward due to the adjustment in face angle you must employ.
- Sub-optimal because you "think" you can adjust a face angle in your mind more accurately than one that is factory measured and stated right on the club....
I'll stick with my original number of 20% of your upside in chipping could be lost here. Some will do better and better club configurations will help but no one is making up the full 20% chipping with one club.
I have tried to chip with different clubs, and it flat out doesn't work for me. I hit it crisp and it goes 20 feet by or 20 feet short, and it's because I don't practice at it, nor do I have time to practice at it. I know my 52 and my 58, and know how hard to hit it. I've had my 58 forever and I had my 53 forever and switching to a 52 only caused a very slight adjustment. It's like trying to chip it into a hill and have it run up it....pretty much never works for me. Much rather hit a 58 high and land it over the hill. The average amateur, in my opinion, is better at mastering one club. Maybe it's a mental/feel thing. To me, I am much better at manipulating myself to do things rather than doing one movement very well and trying to match something I have no control of to that movement. (although to truly get better at golf, I agree you have to do both.)
Originally Posted by Your Boss
I see merits for both "systems" but I think the "oh it's too complicated" angle isn't really a good one.
If I set a wall up in front of you at 3 feet and asked you to lob a ball over it to a given target you could do it no problem. Same thing with a 4 foot wall, a 5 foot wall, etc. Your body just "feels" it.
It's the same thing with wedges or any club. You subconsciously know how hard to hit different clubs to go a different distance. Like, I have never ever chipped with my 3 iron, but I'm pretty sure I could bump and run it pretty effectively right now without practice.
If you made me bump and run my 3 iron I couldn't get it within 20 feet of the hole. If you made me putt from 40 yards, I would probably get it within 20 feet of the hole easily.
Okay, I am unqualified to actually do this mathematically in any way. But say I miss 11 greens and I have the option to putt or chip on all of them. If I chip the ball on all 11, I am going to hit a great chip to tap in range maybe 4 times, to a 4-5 footer maybe 4 times, and I will hit it too hard or too soft maybe twice, and I will flub or blade one once.
My score on those holes is probably 6 or 7 over, and that's assuming I knock it stone dead 4 times in a round, which is probably not realistic. Also if I chip 11 times, I am probably going to flub or blade more than one, even though I am much improved.
If I putt the ball on all 11 holes, I am probably going to knock it to tap in range twice, to 4-5 feet probably 5 times, and hit one to 10 feet 3 times, and maybe 15 feet once.
My score on those holes is probably going to 3 or 4 over.
This probably applies to MOST amateurs, although my thinking is that I probably putt from more insane places than most. I think there is some weird measure of control that golfers desire that chipping gives them, even though it is short sighted. I can't tell you how many times you see a guy putt from the fringe on tour, it squirts offline, and ends up 6 inches from the hole and the announcer bemoans the decision. The ball can easily squirt online and go in the hole or take a bad bounce if you chip. Then you see Mickelson pull the pin out, chip from 1 foot off the green, hits it with too much pace but almost holes it, 360 lipout from 5 feet, and you never hear a word about why the hell didn't he just putt it.