Is the game of golf evolving? And is the evolution good?

[Middler]

On 9/9/2021 at 3:08 PM, CRW said:

When it comes to what you have listed I picked evolving/good.  

However, it seems other areas are evolving in a bad way. Specifically, the types of clientele and their lack of respect for the property when playing and their heckling when watching at tour events.  Anyone who yells anything after a shot at a tour event should automatically be ejected from the premises.  

This is the evolution that I’m disappointed by, but it’s how people behave today, and it has little if anything to do with golf.

As for tech I’m all for it, but I think too many players overestimate what launch monitors, fittings, etc. will do for them. It takes lessons and practice to consistently deliver the club face at the right angle and path - launch monitors and fittings won’t do it in most cases. I know plenty of guys with very expensive custom fitted clubs who haven’t improved at all. And I know quite a few very low HI players who’ve never been on a launch monitor and only play off the rack clubs they chose themselves.

[DiscipleofPenick]

On 9/10/2021 at 12:05 PM, THEZIPR23 said:

Would love to hear the reasoning behind this thought?

While I haven't read the book, my understanding of the data is that it's too generalized, or it comes to the wrong conclusions. My reference point for this data is mostly from the PDFs Shot Scope put out awhile back. I think SG works for the pros because it tells them where they stand in competition and you can see the reasons why they actually won a tournament. I'll take Bryson's US Open win for example. Everyone goes on about his distance, but if you look at SG, he won that Open with his up and downs and putting. In a non-competitive round what good does some formula do for a bogey golfer to know that he hit his irons -1.2 strokes worse. Worse than what? Better than what? These are just numbers without meaning.

Then there's the conclusions and contradictions, which I'll be referencing Shot Scope. So in the first book, their argument is that Driver should be hit no matter what. But then in the fourth book on approach shots, they say players need to be in the fairway no matter what. Well which is it? Rip driver all the time regardless of where it winds up, or lay back and make sure you're in the fairway to provide a more accurate approach? There is no right answer to this question. The answer depends on the hole length, where is the trouble, what are the conditions, how the golfer is swinging that day, and what is the golfer's overall confidence level in that club and shot selection. Do just conclude that one should always do A or B, especially when A and B are wholly contradictory, is an invalid conclusion. On par 4s & 5s I just ask myself, what club gets me inside PW distance (<145 for me) so if a 5i does this, I then ask myself is it worth hitting driver? And make my decision based on all the above questions I mentioned above. All the questions Strokes Gained ignores because they conclude ALWAYS A or B.

Then there's the conclusions on approach shots hitting into greens. Again, they over generalize. They conclude that golfers need to ALWAYS go long of the pin. Because 70% of the time trouble, bunkers & ponds, are short of the green. the conclusion should be to always avoid trouble, not always go long. Players need to know their true carry yardages, and not plan based on best shot outcomes. Around Northern Ohio, our courses are older, and older courses are designed with greens that slope back to front. So if a player is going to try and play long they are likely to be faced with a long day of slick downhill chips and putts. Now maybe some are comfortable with this, but I don't know many that are. Give me uphill putts all day. Know your yardages, know your misses, and play what's comfortable.

Same goes for putting. I can't stand all this try to hit the ball 18 inches past the cup crap. Yes I am very old school on putting. I believe if you are trying to hit the putt past the hole, guess what, you are going to hit the putt past the hole. Going back to the Little Red Book- a putt that is hit too hard will hit the cup and spin away. A putt that dies at the hole with give luck a chance and tumble in. I see tons of three putts from players hitting their first past the cup, and very few from leaving it short. If you leave it short you've already read the putt and know the break and speed. When you putt long, you've got to figure it all out again. 

Forget Strokes Gained - it's Strokes Shaved baby

1. Hit the longest club you are comfortable with off the tee.

2. Don't be a hero if you get in trouble off the tee, take your medicine and keep it in play.

3. Know your misses and carry yardages with irons. 

4. When chipping use the club that gets the ball rolling the soonest.

5. Let the ball die into the hole when putting.

[ejgaudette]

14 minutes ago, DiscipleofPenick said:

While I haven't read the book, my understanding of the data is that it's too generalized, or it comes to the wrong conclusions. My reference point for this data is mostly from the PDFs Shot Scope put out awhile back. I think SG works for the pros because it tells them where they stand in competition and you can see the reasons why they actually won a tournament. I'll take Bryson's US Open win for example. Everyone goes on about his distance, but if you look at SG, he won that Open with his up and downs and putting. In a non-competitive round what good does some formula do for a bogey golfer to know that he hit his irons -1.2 strokes worse. Worse than what? Better than what? These are just numbers without meaning.

Then there's the conclusions and contradictions, which I'll be referencing Shot Scope. So in the first book, their argument is that Driver should be hit no matter what. But then in the fourth book on approach shots, they say players need to be in the fairway no matter what. Well which is it? Rip driver all the time regardless of where it winds up, or lay back and make sure you're in the fairway to provide a more accurate approach? There is no right answer to this question. The answer depends on the hole length, where is the trouble, what are the conditions, how the golfer is swinging that day, and what is the golfer's overall confidence level in that club and shot selection. Do just conclude that one should always do A or B, especially when A and B are wholly contradictory, is an invalid conclusion. On par 4s & 5s I just ask myself, what club gets me inside PW distance (<145 for me) so if a 5i does this, I then ask myself is it worth hitting driver? And make my decision based on all the above questions I mentioned above. All the questions Strokes Gained ignores because they conclude ALWAYS A or B.

Then there's the conclusions on approach shots hitting into greens. Again, they over generalize. They conclude that golfers need to ALWAYS go long of the pin. Because 70% of the time trouble, bunkers & ponds, are short of the green. the conclusion should be to always avoid trouble, not always go long. Players need to know their true carry yardages, and not plan based on best shot outcomes. Around Northern Ohio, our courses are older, and older courses are designed with greens that slope back to front. So if a player is going to try and play long they are likely to be faced with a long day of slick downhill chips and putts. Now maybe some are comfortable with this, but I don't know many that are. Give me uphill putts all day. Know your yardages, know your misses, and play what's comfortable.

Same goes for putting. I can't stand all this try to hit the ball 18 inches past the cup crap. Yes I am very old school on putting. I believe if you are trying to hit the putt past the hole, guess what, you are going to hit the putt past the hole. Going back to the Little Red Book- a putt that is hit too hard will hit the cup and spin away. A putt that dies at the hole with give luck a chance and tumble in. I see tons of three putts from players hitting their first past the cup, and very few from leaving it short. If you leave it short you've already read the putt and know the break and speed. When you putt long, you've got to figure it all out again. 

Forget Strokes Gained - it's Strokes Shaved baby

1. Hit the longest club you are comfortable with off the tee.

2. Don't be a hero if you get in trouble off the tee, take your medicine and keep it in play.

3. Know your misses and carry yardages with irons. 

4. When chipping use the club that gets the ball rolling the soonest.

5. Let the ball die into the hole when putting.

I think unfortunately the Shot Scope books seemed to have done you a disservice, because as you mention Strokes Gained is just a numeric evaluation of the performance but it takes a system like DECADE to help take that data and distill meaning from it. DECADE would indeed tell you if the hole is too narrow between hazards then driver will not be the play say and that taking less than driver is fine generally if it leaves you with a wedge or less in. I am not overly familiar with the specifics of DECADE but I have never heard DECADE say to always hit the ball past pin, more about like what you said know your distances and picking better aim points and such. Of course play the game however you find best, but I think personally stokes gained and system like DECADE to analyze this will help give you the best chance to shoot your lowest scores, this has worked for me this year. And I would say on your own you are closer to DECADE strategy than you might think.

[cnosil]

2 minutes ago, ejgaudette said:

I think unfortunately the Shot Scope books seemed to have done you a disservice, because as you mention Strokes Gained is just a numeric evaluation of the performance but it takes a system like DECADE to help take that data and distill meaning from it. DECADE would indeed tell you if the hole is too narrow between hazards then driver will not be the play say and that taking less than driver is fine generally if it leaves you with a wedge or less in. I am not overly familiar with the specifics of DECADE but I have never heard DECADE say to always hit the ball past pin, more about like what you said know your distances and picking better aim points and such. Of course play the game however you find best, but I think personally stokes gained and system like DECADE to analyze this will help give you the best chance to shoot your lowest scores, this has worked for me this year. And I would say on your own you are closer to DECADE strategy than you might think.

DECaDE does not say to always hit past the pin.  Lou Stagner has shown statistics that indicate that players score better when they hit past the hole.  Of course that is not always the best option on a back pin.   DECADE does say don’t intentionally try to leave yourself and uphill putt because you will not decrease your scoring by any measureable number.   DECADE also stresses dispersion medicating that you will hit somewhere within your shot cone; that could be long, short, left, or right and on any given shot you don’t know which you are going to get.   

[ejgaudette]

8 minutes ago, cnosil said:

DECaDE does not say to always hit past the pin.  Lou Stagner has shown statistics that indicate that players score better when they hit past the hole.  Of course that is not always the best option on a back pin.   DECADE does say don’t intentionally try to leave yourself and uphill putt because you will not decrease your scoring by any measureable number.   DECADE also stresses dispersion medicating that you will hit somewhere within your shot cone; that could be long, short, left, or right and on any given shot you don’t know which you are going to get.   

That is basically what I thought the approach principals were. Its is crazy hearing Lou talk about hitting past the hole and how that leads to the proximity difference between the best players and those loosing their cards. Getting past a bit more generally reduces proximity leading to more putts made and lower scores.

[cnosil]

30 minutes ago, DiscipleofPenick said:

. I think SG works for the pros because it tells them where they stand in competition and you can see the reasons why they actually won a tournament.. In a non-competitive round what good does some formula do for a bogey golfer to know that he hit his irons -1.2 strokes worse. Worse than what? Better than what? These are just numbers without meaning.

So in the first book, their argument is that Driver should be hit no matter what. But then in the fourth book on approach shots, they say players need to be in the fairway no matter what.. The answer depends on the hole length, where is the trouble, what are the conditions, how the golfer is swinging that day, and what is the golfer's overall confidence level in that club and shot selection.
 

All the questions Strokes Gained ignores because they conclude ALWAYS A or B.

 

Forget Strokes Gained - it's Strokes Shaved baby

1. Hit the longest club you are comfortable with off the tee.

2. Don't be a hero if you get in trouble off the tee, take your medicine and keep it in play.

3. Know your misses and carry yardages with irons. 

4. When chipping use the club that gets the ball rolling the soonest.

5. Let the ball die into the hole when putting.

IMO,  Strokes gained works for golfers trying to improve their game as it helps identify where they are losing the most strokes.  Yes, for some golfers it is painfully obvious because they duff shots or hit the ball OB or have too many penalties but as a players game becomes more refined it can helps target specific skills to work on. 
 

I don’t remember the details in those  documents but you are correct that those contradictions  are big confusion areas   Yes I want to be in the fairway,  but you are correct on all those decisions on a hole.  You need to assess you game and abilities to decide how to play a hole.  That said,  unless a player has significant struggles with a club, a shorter club and the lost distance does not generally result in lower scores as player don’t hit the fairway more often if they go to lesser clubs.  
 

not sure how you are distinguishing strokes gained vs  your strokes shaved, but your items sound a lot like strokes gained thoughts.  You’d have to provide. Ore detail on intent to really say you don’t follow stroke gained.  

[cnosil]

2 minutes ago, ejgaudette said:

That is basically what I thought the approach principals were. Its is crazy hearing Lou talk about hitting past the hole and how that leads to the proximity difference between the best players and those loosing their cards. Getting past a bit more generally reduces proximity leading to more putts made and lower scores.

I am not so sure it is about actually being past the hole.  It is about a players dispersion circle.  Yes you need to understand the green complex but being on the green is always better than having to chip or use a putter from off the green.   He is really advocating things like for a front pin, you want to target more to the middle to accommodate the part of the pattern that is short of the hole.  Some shots will be front of the green, some pin high, and some mode or farther back.   For a back pin,  you want to pick a club that has the long part if you pattern near the back of the green; which may mean targeting the middle or 3/4 back but not past the pin.   

[Kenny B]

Maybe there is a certain quality level for a golfer where all the data is useful.  I know it's not at my level.  I don't need data to tell me anything about my game.  I can see all I need to know every time I play.  I know what parts of my game are good and what's bad.  I work on that which is bad, and hopefully don't diminish my good parts as I do.  I honestly don't believe that having the data would make me practice or play any better.  

To sum up my game:

• I always hit my driver on par 4 and 5; I hit my driver in the fairway... mostly.
• I hit my FW/hybrid straight... unless I mishit them.
• I hit my irons straight... unless I mishit them.
• I get up and down from around the green... about average.
• I one- and two- putt most of the time; tendency is to be just past the hole if missed.

If I consistently made good contact with the ball, then data might be useful.  I lose strokes on mishits from the fairway.  Fewer mishits means low scores; more mishits means high scores... simple as that.

[GolfSpy TCB]

41 minutes ago, DiscipleofPenick said:

Forget Strokes Gained - it's Strokes Shaved baby

1. Hit the longest club you are comfortable with off the tee.

2. Don't be a hero if you get in trouble off the tee, take your medicine and keep it in play.

3. Know your misses and carry yardages with irons. 

4. When chipping use the club that gets the ball rolling the soonest.

5. Let the ball die into the hole when putting.

While I am an Accountant/Statistician by trade, and find SG fascinating (Read Mark Broadie's book a few times, as well as Dave Pels on putting many years ago), I don't disagree with your comments DoP.  It is REALLY easy to get Paralysis by Analysis when diving into SG.  And for the most part, my results show me what I really already know.... I suck with my approach game and need to improve it to lower my scores.  I think SG makes a lot of sense when you are working in the decimals, not in the whole numbers (where I am - even compared to scratch golfers... let alone pro golfers).  I love strokes gained for what it is... additional detailed information that keeps my head in the round while I'm playing.  One advantage that I have seen in tracking my SG is knowing every single yardage I'm playing from.  Tee to fairway to chips to putts.  I admit, before SG, I wasn't pacing off chips and putts so I could record them accurately... but having done so for a few months now... I have a better feel for my execution for those shots now.  

But when I tee off, I am:

• Hitting the longest club I am comfortable with off the tee (Driver)
• Regularly taking my medicine and keep it in play (more often than I would like).
• Intimately knowledgeable of my misses and and somewhat my carry yardages with irons (too many misses) 
• Chipping using the club that gets the ball rolling the soonest, and
• Letting the ball die into the hole when putting (always been a "die at the hole" putter - and would add this.... endeavor to always miss on the high "Pro" side of the hole).

Then when I finish my round, I stop off at the range and pull out my 7 iron to figure out why I can hit a green.  

[DiscipleofPenick]

1 hour ago, ejgaudette said:

I think unfortunately the Shot Scope books seemed to have done you a disservice, because as you mention Strokes Gained is just a numeric evaluation of the performance but it takes a system like DECADE to help take that data and distill meaning from it. DECADE would indeed tell you if the hole is too narrow between hazards then driver will not be the play say and that taking less than driver is fine generally if it leaves you with a wedge or less in. I am not overly familiar with the specifics of DECADE but I have never heard DECADE say to always hit the ball past pin, more about like what you said know your distances and picking better aim points and such. Of course play the game however you find best, but I think personally stokes gained and system like DECADE to analyze this will help give you the best chance to shoot your lowest scores, this has worked for me this year. And I would say on your own you are closer to DECADE strategy than you might think.

Maybe I am close, as I'm wholly unfamiliar with DECADE. All I know is my true yardages, my misses, and I track my stats through the USGA app. I make my decisions in the moment, I don't need an abstract statistic to help how. However, given what you said then DECADE may be the other piece of the puzzle that I was unaware of, which means I see your point and agree with you.

[ejgaudette]

2 minutes ago, DiscipleofPenick said:

Maybe I am close, as I'm wholly unfamiliar with DECADE. All I know is my true yardages, my misses, and I track my stats through the USGA app. I make my decisions in the moment, I don't need an abstract statistic to help how. However, given what you said then DECADE may be the other piece of the puzzle that I was unaware of, which means I see your point and agree with you.

Well, always up for someone agreeing with me, my children are not so easily swayed lately so I'll take the win when I can get it.

[DiscipleofPenick]

53 minutes ago, cnosil said:

IMO,  Strokes gained works for golfers trying to improve their game as it helps identify where they are losing the most strokes.  Yes, for some golfers it is painfully obvious because they duff shots or hit the ball OB or have too many penalties but as a players game becomes more refined it can helps target specific skills to work on. 
 

I don’t remember the details in those  documents but you are correct that those contradictions  are big confusion areas   Yes I want to be in the fairway,  but you are correct on all those decisions on a hole.  You need to assess you game and abilities to decide how to play a hole.  That said,  unless a player has significant struggles with a club, a shorter club and the lost distance does not generally result in lower scores as player don’t hit the fairway more often if they go to lesser clubs.  
 

not sure how you are distinguishing strokes gained vs  your strokes shaved, but your items sound a lot like strokes gained thoughts.  You’d have to provide. Ore detail on intent to really say you don’t follow stroke gained.  

Right I wrote up a little diatribe because I've had on course discussions with some other Spies and I just wanted to remember my criticisms of their conclusions so I don't misquote myself, or misremember when a topic like this comes up. I've said in several threads here, is that I can work on improving my game without abstract stats to support it. I just track my stats through the USGA app and see where I need to improve and whether my miss is generally right or left. I can use the distance tool on Google Earth to measure out a course before I go so I have a good idea of where the trouble really is and how concerned I should be. 

If my Strokes Shaved thought is similar to Strokes Gained, then I feel like SG isn't really anything that new. It's a new package, and a result of the data revolution. I've not read SG or DECADE, but I've read Sorenstam, Nicklaus, Hogan, and of course Penick. And a lot of that is lifted from Bobby Jones & Stewart Maiden. If the old masters and SG are coming to similar conclusions, maybe golf hasn't advanced as much as we think it has. Now we can just better understand and quantify everything.

BTW I've lifted the term Strokes Shaved from Golf Sidekick on YouTube. The ideas align with the Penick books and what I was doing already. It's just a new package for existing ideas.  

[DiscipleofPenick]

51 minutes ago, Tiftaaft said:

While I am an Accountant/Statistician by trade, and find SG fascinating (Read Mark Broadie's book a few times, as well as Dave Pels on putting many years ago), I don't disagree with your comments DoP.  It is REALLY easy to get Paralysis by Analysis when diving into SG.  And for the most part, my results show me what I really already know.... I suck with my approach game and need to improve it to lower my scores.  I think SG makes a lot of sense when you are working in the decimals, not in the whole numbers (where I am - even compared to scratch golfers... let alone pro golfers).  I love strokes gained for what it is... additional detailed information that keeps my head in the round while I'm playing.  One advantage that I have seen in tracking my SG is knowing every single yardage I'm playing from.  Tee to fairway to chips to putts.  I admit, before SG, I wasn't pacing off chips and putts so I could record them accurately... but having done so for a few months now... I have a better feel for my execution for those shots now.  

But when I tee off, I am:

• Hitting the longest club I am comfortable with off the tee (Driver)
• Regularly taking my medicine and keep it in play (more often than I would like).
• Intimately knowledgeable of my misses and and somewhat my carry yardages with irons (too many misses) 
• Chipping using the club that gets the ball rolling the soonest, and
• Letting the ball die into the hole when putting (always been a "die at the hole" putter - and would add this.... endeavor to always miss on the high "Pro" side of the hole).

Then when I finish my round, I stop off at the range and pull out my 7 iron to figure out why I can hit a green.  

I have a history degree & do data/records for a law firm, I live in Excel data too. The paralysis is another reason I stick to simple stat tracking via the USGA app. It's why I've avoided Arccos for so long too, but I keep getting closer to picking that up. I agree with missing on the pro side, that's a nice addition. My big thing is if I have a bad day, I don't worry about it. Most of golf is alternating between the low B and C games until those few glorious rounds a year where it clicks. My point in other replies, is that a lot of this is not new ideas. Strokes Gained seems to be quantifying the sentiments of Jones, Hogan, Penick, and Nicklaus.

[Londo]

I selected "other" as the game of golf is definitely evolving and I think that it is both good and bad. I think that it is fantastic that the game of golf is growing as more people than ever are getting into the great sport and showing interest. There are more options that ever in terms of gear and technology which is typically great for the consumer/golfer to find the best gear for them. However, some of the drawbacks are that there can be choice/decision fatigue between all of the options.

The technology available helps those who are interested get as much data as they could ever want about their gear and game. However, this can also be seen as a drawback as those who have access to the best technology/training can be barriers to entry for those who don't have the financial resources but want to improve at the game.

Personally, I think that even as a younger golfer, one of the largest drawback to the game is that some of the courses that are being made today are longer than ever before. This is due to technology advancements and that the best players are longer than ever before. However, non professionals are not that long and accurate and these courses typically aren't creative or fun.

I believe that at its core, golf should be fun and reward skill and creativity. New courses shouldn't be made as long but should be unique and fun. Not saying that courses should be short or not difficult, but they should have unique, memorable holes that take advantage of the natural geography that all golfers can appreciate. Otherwise, the sport just turns into a driving contest.

[cnosil]

45 minutes ago, DiscipleofPenick said:

Right I wrote up a little diatribe because I've had on course discussions with some other Spies and I just wanted to remember my criticisms of their conclusions so I don't misquote myself, or misremember when a topic like this comes up. I've said in several threads here, is that I can work on improving my game without abstract stats to support it. I just track my stats through the USGA app and see where I need to improve and whether my miss is generally right or left. I can use the distance tool on Google Earth to measure out a course before I go so I have a good idea of where the trouble really is and how concerned I should be. 

If my Strokes Shaved thought is similar to Strokes Gained, then I feel like SG isn't really anything that new. It's a new package, and a result of the data revolution. I've not read SG or DECADE, but I've read Sorenstam, Nicklaus, Hogan, and of course Penick. And a lot of that is lifted from Bobby Jones & Stewart Maiden. If the old masters and SG are coming to similar conclusions, maybe golf hasn't advanced as much as we think it has. Now we can just better understand and quantify everything.

BTW I've lifted the term Strokes Shaved from Golf Sidekick on YouTube. The ideas align with the Penick books and what I was doing already. It's just a new package for existing ideas.  

I think you are right, strokes gained isn’t anything new, it just quantifies what knowledgeable golfers knew and helps set expectations.   Scott Fawcett will say that DECADE isn’t that hard but helps package the things players learn over decades of playing.  In that light it probably hasn’t advanced from a game standpoint but maybe has evolved in the packaging of the information.   The use of google earth to map the course is an evolution,  you can see the hole, measure distance and establish sight lines,  you can observe shadows to see depth, you can rotate it to show topography.   Almost don’t need a practice round anymore.  
 

[GolfSpy TCB]

1 hour ago, DiscipleofPenick said:

Jones, Hogan, Penick, and Nicklaus.

I should also say that On Golf, 5 Lessons, Little Red Book and Golf My Way are all on heavy rotation in my nightstand stack.

[GolfSpy TCB]

1 hour ago, DiscipleofPenick said:

Most of golf is alternating between the low B and C games

Just to be fair, my game is probably alternating between low C and D games... I celebrate a "B" day   

And you are exactly correct.  

Bottom line:  Practice the weaknesses = improve the weaknesses = play better golf.  We all know what parts of our individual game fits into that equation.

[GolfSpy TCB]

1 hour ago, Londo said:

New courses shouldn't be made as long but should be unique and fun.

Good comment. 

One way to improve the fun factor is to use the various tees that many courses have - even the long courses. Check the ego, and step up to the red tees with pride... and I've done it.  My current course has 5 sets of tees, including the "Ladies Tees" and I've played them all.  It is amazing what intricacies pop up when you alter the yardages on any given course. 

I look at it this way...   If the "Whites" give me mid to long iron approaches, then the "Blues" will make me play lots of fairway woods (and turn some 4's into 5's).  The "Golds" will give me mostly short irons in, so I can work on more of my 100 yards in shots (which from the Blues or Whites, I wouldn't get to practice as much as possibly chipping as I am mostly just missing the greens from the longer distances).  From the "Reds" I will give my half shots and pitches more practice. 

That is my approach to having fun... practicing shots on the course and still playing a round.  

The last thing that really drives me is playing under competitive conditions.  Whether that be a $5 Nassau with the buddies, the Saturday men's club event, the club championship, or an open event at another course.  You really don't know what your game is unless you put it up to some competition.

All those things above have nothing to do with Game Evolution - but ways that I try to evolve the time I spend on the course.  

Edited September 14, 2021 by Tiftaaft

[DiscipleofPenick]

30 minutes ago, Tiftaaft said:

I should also say that On Golf, 5 Lessons, Little Red Book and Golf My Way are all on heavy rotation in my nightstand stack.

I've read 5 lessons. I don't like it, but understand why it's had such a big impact for decades. I have all 4 Penick books, some Rotella, and Every Shot Must Have a Purpose by Lynn Marriott & Pua Nilsson, those were Sorenstam's coaches.

[GolfSpy TCB]

24 minutes ago, DiscipleofPenick said:

Every Shot Must Have a Purpose

I'll have to look into this one... I haven't read it... and I very much admire Annika.  Penick is great.. I have all 4 as well...  but I believe I'm preaching to the choir on that one.  

[DiscipleofPenick]

2 hours ago, Tiftaaft said:

I'll have to look into this one... I haven't read it... and I very much admire Annika.  Penick is great.. I have all 4 as well...  but I believe I'm preaching to the choir on that one.  

As the name says....

[Londo]

5 hours ago, Tiftaaft said:

One way to improve the fun factor is to use the various tees that many courses have - even the long courses. Check the ego, and step up to the red tees with pride... and I've done it. 

Honestly, when I have the chance to play some of the nicest course (ie. Whistling Straights, Sand Valley) I have played from the reds/seniors/ladies tees. It makes for a much more enjoyable experience from the level that I am at right now. If I am a 4 HCP 10 years from now? Sure back it up, I’ll make it a challenge. I have just talked to so many people that have played from the Whites/Blues at some of these places that are 15+ HCPs that have gotten destroyed/humbled at these places that it ruins the experience 

[GolfSpy TCB]

9 hours ago, Londo said:

Honestly, when I have the chance to play some of the nicest course (ie. Whistling Straights, Sand Valley) I have played from the reds/seniors/ladies tees. It makes for a much more enjoyable experience

You sound like someone I would love to play with Londo!  

[Haro]

If I had to play with persommon woods with those small head I would most likely  be an observer and not active in the playing the game   The "driver" back in those days was a modern 5-wood   equioment invented  a whole new way of playing f or the next generation  And I enjoy playing more with modern woods, The irons are better too but I dont think its made much of the difference to me except  I do like graphite in my irons as Im a senior now.  The LW did not really make that much of a difference for me until lately as I was practicing it more often and still chip "old style" with lower lofts clubs

I only thing that I wish we could go back is old putters   Almost  Everyone plays with a anser type neck  design  I still use old style 8802 type putter .  But then again I think the enjoyment I get is  tee to green and less with the putting onthe green   for me

I tried some many different puttters and putting styles . I think the only think I wish I had back was anchoring  that worked for me 

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Haro

[Redshadow]

The game is evolving and the evolution is good.