I'll try out the bolded again (now that I am a little more comfortable with my wedge game). Thanks.

FYI: the reason I made a point about saying I shoot mid-80's was for 2 reasons:
#1. so I can qualify my statement (good or bad) to people who shoot better and worse than me
#2. the best advice I have received has been from people who are just 5-10 strokes better than me. Mainly because (I find) they can relate to my issues on the golf course a little better (as they aren't far removed from it) and can give the next logical step to improving.

eta: re: #2: I mean, it'd be nice if we could all just acquire that perfect golf swing, perfect contact, perfect divots in year one, but I think it's fair to say it's a game of progression.

Again, I could be wrong here -- just my opinion.

Ship shot 79 at Pinehurst, sounds like it's a perfect fit.

BO

I'd probably shoot 100!

Don't you mean a zillion and 10?

Those were the exact reasons I thought you put what you shoot were, context. It’s also the reason I put my lol jk/US Open reference. I fully recognize that it took me 10 years to go from a kid who broke 80 for the first time to posting a pair 79’s in a US Open and as I’ve stated a hundred times I truly respect anyone (ARC included) who try to get better at this mind boggling game.

The reason I say put it back in your stance and hone in the hinge and hold method until you perfect it(ish) is because you aren’t capable yet of moving it up and sliding the club under the ball and controlling it yet. I qualify that against the constant golf forum derail of wanting to pull off the occasional hero shot vs shooting the lowest score possible given the players skillset. I say shoot the lowest you can, practice the trouble shots and as you get better continue to add a few of those into the mix when they present themselves.

But for a mid 80’s shooter I think that not ****ing it up is more important that saving par. ****, I think that’s the case for a professional and am working on the math to prove that out ATM.

So now in reference to point #2 above, the best advice you’ve received is to use 3 clubs (say 60/58, 52, 9 iron) and learn how they react in each condition. From a fairway/meh rough lie play them mid way back in the stance and use a legit putting stroke to carry the ball 1/3 the way and roll the last 2/3 of the way. As the lie gets worse put it further back and have more of an out to in angle of steep attack. See what happens. As you get better you will fill the gaps of each club and know how every club from about 8 iron to 60 degree reacts from each lie. FWIW I use a 60 almost all the time. I know the conventional wisdom is to try to vary all the clubs, but 80% or so of chips are pretty standard and only need a 60. It is VERY rare as a decent player that I find myself in need of an 8 iron bump and run from god knows where.

Shot it twice…FML.
Both 79’s felt like a zillion and I’m pretty sure I told a buddy I shot a zillion….that’s how I knew the context of what BO was saying as sarcasm.

Although, 79 is a zillion, right?

What is there to prove?

Over the long run, EVERYONE needs to attempt the shot/pick the target that gives them the lowest Expected Strokes to Hole Out.(Disclaimer: Yes there are some extenuating circumstances, of which the calculations can be much more tedious, but for the most part this is not rocket science.)

If a "player" is faced with a pitch shot and has the choice between the following 2 options.

1. Aim directly at the hole
35% holes out in 2 shots
50% holes out in 3 shots
15% holes out in 4 shots

EV= (35%*2) + (50%*3) + (15%*4)

EV= 2.8 shots

2. Aim 10 feet past the hole
25% holes out in 2 shots
75% holes out in 3 shots

EV= (25%*2) +(75%*3)

EV= 2.75 shots

A is the best answer.

The answer of the scenario above does not change by just changing the "player" from "Tour Professional" to "Mid 80's shooter". The only difference is maybe when the player is a "Mid 80's shooter" the above calculations are for a relatively straight forward pitch shot from a good lie over a bunker that would seem easy to a professional, and the shot facing the "Tour Professional" to where he is weighing options A and B, is a much trickier short sided pitch shot to a pin cut closer over the bunker and he's hitting from the rough.

The process and the outcome would also be the same if you switched out "player" and replaced it with either ARC or yourself.

And now we know why it takes 5 hours to play golf!

BO

Furyk on chipping:


I remember watching this clip last year and trying it out. The problem is, you really need to put in a lot of time and effort to figuring out the range of all these clubs (and remembering them). It's much easier (with less practice) to master one club (like the 56*) and adjust the range accordingly, the same way you would a putter. (btw, I'm saying mainly for shots just off the green, like the one Furyk is hitting).

I would like to see the math on EV of aiming for tucked pins.

Actually I listened to a piece of advice Ship mentioned a couple years ago in which he said anyone above a 5 hc should basically always aim approach shots at the middle of the green and ignore the pin. I started doing this and I love it. For one, it's a bigger target so it's easier to hit and a funner challenge. And number 2 I do find myself short-siding myself less often (not that I ever really aimed at many flags). But when I see a green now I see the bunkers, the tree overhangs, the green slopes and I kind of mix it all together and decide what is the effective "center" of the green from where I stand. AKA the safest line to take to get home in 3.

Pros have to aim at tucked pins way way more often if they want to win tournies and make money and often end up screwing themselves short-side. Though their shot is still probably the highest EV. It's just introducing more risk-reward.

This is one reason I hate Jim Furyk. Watch him last year in the final round of the PGA he didn't take a single risk going for a flag. It was center of green every time. Dufner took more risky shots and ultimately got the glory. Furyk is so damn boring. I guess he was waiting for Dufner to choke like in 2011 but he definitely should have played more risky imo.

I suck at golf but I love thinking about all this type of stuff.

I use all 4-wedges in my bag to chip,pitch with. I'll also use any of the irons for a long bump and run. still wont use the hybrid or woods to chip, haven't got used to the "jump" of the club faces with a putting stroke.

I first determine where I want to land the ball and with what trajectory, then I pick the club for the shot I visualize always factoring in the lie. Recalling passed shots from similar lies and situations and what worked or didn't helps. One general guideline is the closer to the hole the less likely I am to attempt a shot with lots of spin. I'm a proponent of the hinge and hold technique also. Important to remember is that sometimes you take your medicine and leave yourself a longish putt rather then gambool on a difficult shot that can lead to disaster.

example of why you don't always grab your wedge. Senior tour championship at Sonoma a few years ago I watched Phil Blackmar and Loren Roberts s hit short bump and runs up a severe slope to a front pin
and jar for birdie. both used 4-iron.

Designer Tom Doak said pro's actually score better when there is no bail out area and they have to shoot at pins.

Well I'm convinced

The math would look exactly like the math above I did for the pitch shot.

Whether or not you can go at tucked pins or how safe you should play is dictated by a few things.

Most importantly: How good you are with the club you are hitting into the green?

Secondly: How good is your short game and how penal is it if you miss the shot

Does an average weekend hack derive more pleasure from shooting a few shots lower or by making 3 birdies in 18 holes?

Yea that would be one of the extenuating circumstances.

Another example would be last hole of a major, go for the win no matter if when you fail you end up 4th or 5th

God damn. Was supposed to head up north tomorrow to play one of the best courses in the country and now they are forecasting a really heavy rainfall day, ungh. I've been looking forward to this for the last two months or so.

http://muskokabayclub.com/photo-gallery.php

I almost had my first 3-birdie round last week after not swinging a club for almost 3 months. And it was the first 3 holes. Hit wedge to 3' made putt. Hit wedge to 11' left putt short. Chipped in on hole 3 par 3 from 38' away. I ended up shooting 45 which is still slightly above average for me. I definitely would have preferred to shoot 39 with 0 or 1 birdies, though.

But yeah I agree with you a lot of hacks probably would rather luckbox 3 birdies in a bad round than play a better round with no "excitement". Bad players need to look at pars almost as birdies, though but they don't.

Ship talked about this a lot and I think said if you aim center of green you will accidentally mis-hit some of those and they'll end up in the quadrant of the green that houses the flag, anyway, giving you a decent look at birdie.

I see it like this:

If you are some magical golfer who, when aiming for the center of the green, always end up in the center of the green, then do feel free to aim at the pins. For the rest of the known universe, the middle of the green is probably a superior strategy whether the goal is bunches of birdies or low scores.

Though I play about 3 times a week, I am relatively new to the game (entering my 3rd season now) and do consider myself a hack (to a certain extent). I would take shooting a better overall score (over a few birdies and a worse score) any day of the week.

Speaking of hacks - I just came back from playing 18 (Royal Ontario) and really shot bad. (44-51-95 and went through at least 6 balls)

I played with a buddy, and we got paired up with another twosome (2x50 year old dudes).
Front 9 was okay, but the back 9 we decided to play $5 a skin and I saw a totally different side to these (former friendly) players.
I'm okay with a little friendly smack talk but these guys would say stupid **** like 'watch out for the water' just before we would start our backswing. Gtfo.

I've fought this fight before, but as a once a week (at best) scratch-ish player, it's not about shooting the lowest scores or making the most birdies, it's about feeling like I'm in control of the golf ball, or pulling of the shots I'm trying to hit. If that results in birdies or low scores, fantastic, but I enjoy my round the most when I feel like I hit it well. Not when I scraped it around and shot a number, or when I lucked in a couple putts.

Looks awesome. Have you played here before?

Also, have you ever played The Rock? (supposed to be playing there next week, for the first time)

YB,

I know exactly whatyou are saying. I played an amateur event last year, shot a 2 over and hit it like absolute crap. If i am playing like that on my usual wednesday afternoon I probably shoot +10 or so. But the fact is when I am playing competitvely, I avoid doubles at all cost, and am plenty fine with pars. I am a pretty good chipper and average putter most days , but under competition i become a really good chipper and slightly above average putter because i focus so much more.

but when i go out and play at 630 pm for 9 holes, I am trying to hit every shot perfect. If that makes me lame, that makes me lame. I get much more fun out of playing a "perfect" hole than I do out of trying to scrap a round together.

anyone know of any resource that would answer the following type of question...

% chance of a tour player hitting an approach inside say 5-10 ft from 150yds. The approach stats on pga tour website give great data for the averages but obv not the full data.

Basically I'm trying to figure out just how bad the odds are on the circle par 3 betting holes that go on during scrambles where some "charity" offers you 3:1 or something to hit in the circle.

Pga tour players have about 5% range for an average shot I think. I'd probably back that all day at 3:1. Call for a charity deal i would bet people would take the bet for a 15' circle from 150 and that has to be profitable for you. Maybe even 12' would look big enough.