Bawlz

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by jasonfish11 » Tue May 22, 2018 3:29 pm

Doug I'm just pulling your leg, it's nothing personal. I need to remember sarcasm doesn't type well.

Now as it pertains to balls, to me it's not just a matter of "does it perform better." There is a cost/benefit to weight for me. To be fair this is something everyone weighs, as I doubt you'd pay $1,000 for a dozen balls that gain you 10 yards on the AVX. Now Trump might be willing to spend that much (specially if they had his name on them). But at some price point even he'd not get them for an extra 10 yards. For me, I'm not interested in spending an extra $100-$200 a year in balls to pick up 5-10 yards. Although I'm interested in them enough to buy a sleeve and see what they do, Titleist has you to thank for that by the way.

As for the launch monitor, it goes along with any other "large" purchases in the last 3-5 years I've made. I'm buying time more than I'm buying a gadget. Being able to hit balls for 30 min at home and then spend time with my family is worth way more than a $2k launch monitor to me, when the alternative is going to the driving range for 1.5 hours. Golf balls don't fit into this category of "time saver", so for me personally they have to pass the cost/benefit test. I highly doubt these balls will be so superior to the MG C4 that I'll be wanting to spend the extra money on them. But you've made me interested enough to at least test them out.
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
DougE
Posts: 1908
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:40 pm
Location: Maryland
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by DougE » Tue May 22, 2018 6:09 pm

JFish, you likely won't see as much benefit as those of us with a swing speed under 95 mph do. (But, don't worry. You'll get your SS down that low eventually. Like it or not. :P )

To really see a difference, turn the wind setting way up on your launch monitor and then compare the AVX to an MG or Pro V. (I'm actually not joking. I think SkyTrak has some sort of virtual wind setting capability, which in itself is pretty impressive.) But, if you try it and the results are not much different between the two balls, then I would highly encourage you to try them side by side in real wind, in the real world, outside. 10-12 MPH of wind in your face would probably be enough to show you that there is something very special about the AVX.

And, to your point about paying a thousand dollars for a ball to gain a few yards, of course that's ludicrous. I wouldn't pay 60 dollars (at this moment in Tour-level ball retail pricing time). However, with the short game I have, of which I am quite proud, I CAN certainly benefit from a urethane covered, Tour level ball, and until the AVX, I found that the Pro V worked best for me. Even if I found that a ChromeSoft or TP5 or B330RX was best for my game, they are all 40-something bucks a dozen too. Yes, the MG is $20 and an excellent ball. And, from what I've read, so is a Vice or Snell or Kirkland or many other Tour level, direct-to-consumer balls. I tried the MG and liked it, but went back to the Pro V. Not because I wanted to spend the extra money, but because I was most comfortable with it for my game. I liked the way the ProV performed for me, particularly around the greens. I could buy one-hit-wonder mint ProVs for the nearly the same price as MGs. I chose to buy new ones for those rounds that matter. So I am already spending what the market price is for a Tour Level ball by a big name brand. Spending a couple bucks more for the Pro V with which I have developed my game, or now the new AVX, which has given me even greater benefits over the the last 6 months, is not a big deal. If the MG is the best for you, whether it be due to performance or price or both, then that's a great win for you. My buddy Bernie is in love with the MG. As I said, I got him hooked on them. I did not even attempt to get him playing AVX. (In fact, I would be happy if no one I play with ever plays an AVX. Better for me.)

And to your other point about not wanting to spend $100-$200 extra per year on balls to pick up an extra 5-10 yards, it may not be worth it to you, but with an AVX, that's often one less club into the green for me. Hell, I just spent $900 on a set of new wedges, a new 4i and new hybrid in an effort to shave a stroke or two here and there. That 5-10 yards extra distance in the AVX is far more likely to make a much bigger difference in my ability to score over the long haul. One or two more greens in regulation due to hitting a shorter club in IS a big deal to me.

FInally Jason, you do not need to try to justify your reasoning for purchasing the SkyTrak to me, or anyone else. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. You get something out of it. That's really all that matters. I would likely get something out of it myself if I had one. I don't think you are dumb for buying it. And you will likely see benefits for your game as a result of the launch monitor. Just like I do playing a ball that feels right for me or playing clubs that feel right when I stand over them at address, whether it be the looks or the fact I was fit for them. Whatever helps your confidence when you stand over the ball. That's the key for me.

User avatar
GBOGEY
Posts: 686
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by GBOGEY » Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:47 pm

Needed balls the other day so when I ordered (with all the golf retail closings I now usually use Amazon Prime for golf balls) I went for the AVX. Decided to use them today and for the most part I was pretty pleased. Certainly has good stopping action on the greens, but the course was also wet so that might have been helping as well. Distance was certainly as good as my typical Bridgestones. Not sure what they mean by penetrating ball flight but I did hit one 7i into a breeze that it seemed the wind didn't matter.

Not saying I'm ready to switch but it's something I'm going to test a little. Certainly from one round seemed to be equal to Bridgestone.

User avatar
GBOGEY
Posts: 686
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by GBOGEY » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:34 am

One thing I will add is the AVX doesn't seem to scuff as much as Bridgestones or Callaways. I hit the cart path with the kind of hit that makes a huge mark on Bridgestones - one of my complaints is that they are so soft that scuff too easilty. AVX seems to have survived this better or at least gotten lucky.

User avatar
DougE
Posts: 1908
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:40 pm
Location: Maryland
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by DougE » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:53 am

GBOGEY wrote:
Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:47 pm
Not sure what they mean by penetrating ball flight but I did hit one 7i into a breeze that it seemed the wind didn't matter.
Exactly.

Wait until the courses dry out. You will see better distance partially as a result of the penetrating flight. It's hard to see the advantage in wet conditions now, but in windy conditions, best ball I can ever remember playing.

Though I have a ton of new Pro V1s in my locker and a dozen in my bag, I am having a hard time playing them right now, I love the AVX so much. I feel like my drives will be shorter if I play a Pro V right now. Not by much, but shorter is shorter and I want every yard I can get. And don't get me wrong, I think the Pro V is as good or better than any ball on the market. But, this new AVX has me infatuated right now. Love the penetrating launch and low spin. Feels great around the greens too.

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by jasonfish11 » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:30 am

So I bought a sleeve of AVX's.

I had a little time last night and hit some 7i's on the skytraks comparing MG C4's to the AVX's.

Before the results some things to note (aka Doug's validation that the data's inaccurate). Skytraks determines actual launch angle, spin rates and ball speed. It calculates carry distances and dispersion. Also my assumption is that it has no way to determine different aerodynamic functions of any golf ball. So it's possible that the 2 balls have different aerodynamic structures that result in actual distances being different that what are recorded here.

How I took the data. I hit the ball until I had 6 solid strikes (deleting really crappy strikes, tops, fats, etc). Then I removed 1 of those 6 that was the furthest offline. Also I alternated balls (which took a while) so I didn't just hit 5 MG C4s and 5 AVX's. I did this for both no wind and into a 10-15 mph wind. For full disclosure the 1 of 6 that I removed were almost all identical pull draws with both balls. So odds are they wouldn't have done anything but make the dispersion for both balls larger. I hit all balls with my 7i but to make it easier to see on the graphs I used the "6i" label for the AVX's, this way I would get 2 different ball flight colors.

Results. My draws went further than my fades (I know shocking). But when comparing similar shots between the 2 balls there was no real difference regardless of what the wind was doing.

Translation, it's possible there is a difference related to the aerodynamic structure of the ball. How much difference could there really be in the aerodynamics, is something I can't test. In the pure data the launch angles, ball speed, spin rates all seemed to be the same. So test for yourself and use which ever ball makes you feel more confident in.

The 1st graph is into the wind the 2nd is with no wind.
Attachments
into wind.jpg
into wind.jpg (112.07 KiB) Viewed 732 times
no wind.jpg
no wind.jpg (111.51 KiB) Viewed 732 times
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
DougE
Posts: 1908
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:40 pm
Location: Maryland
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by DougE » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:43 am

Now, since you have some AVX in hand, I highly recommend you try them out where they really show a distance (edit, oops, freudian slip) difference. In real life on a real course in real wind. If you don't see a difference, then as you say, play whichever ball makes you feel more confident. But, I believe you WILL see a difference, as has the majority of others who have tried it and hit enough shots from all sorts of lies, in all types of conditions, off all different clubs. I have done so myself and have truly seen a difference.

User avatar
GBOGEY
Posts: 686
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by GBOGEY » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:21 am

I'm going to play both AVX and B330-RX over the next few weeks. I plan to have a real test in a few weeks where I play the same course on consecutive days. Not sure there is a clear favorite at this time, but we will see. Worst case I stick with B330-RX but it will be nice to have a Titleist Yellow option - sometimes hard to find yellow balls at course shops.

User avatar
GBOGEY
Posts: 686
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by GBOGEY » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:02 pm

So I decided that I am really going to compare my preferred Bridgestones and Titleist AVX. But first I had a sleeve of Callaway Chromesoft to work through. I bought them when I unexpected ran out of balls and they were the only yellow balls available. So I went out to a play a few after work today, Callaways the balls.

First hole part 5 - didn't love my 2nd shot so I dropped another ball. Promptly hit it into someone's yard along the first hole behind a fence. 2nd hole is par 3 with a water hazard. Tee shot just barely into the hazard. Decided to play from the drop zone, but since I wasn't loose yet I was going to hit another practice ball from the tee. Worse than the first into the hazard the whole way. 5 full swings, 3 lost balls. Evaluation starting early. Did come close to losing a ball the rest of the day.

User avatar
bkuehn1952
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:08 pm
Location: The Frigid, Sunless Mitten
dogs: 0
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by bkuehn1952 » Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:12 pm

Found my first AVX yesterday. I missed this discussion and had no idea what an AVX was. Will put it play next time out. I anticipate some 300 yard drives. :yess
Let's Play 36
GHIN Handicap: 7.8 … 9.2 … Let’s just say I am around a 14!

User avatar
legitimatebeef
Posts: 5665
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:34 pm
Location: island off the coast of america
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by legitimatebeef » Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:31 pm

Here is my deal lately. I just play whatever ball I can find. Over the last few months that has included a Bridgestone e6 and a Titleist "Velocity", which to me does not even sound like an authentic product. Also been using my usual mix of Pro-V1, Bridgestone b330 and MG C4. I do not actually perceive any significant difference in these things. Who knows, maybe my scores are being affected by my choice of ball, I'm just saying I do not notice it.

My willingness to use a variety of different balls reflects both an increasingly casual attitude towards golf and also an acceptance of how much I suck. That is to say I realize that I am just not good enough to acutely sense any performance differences among the top selling brands/models of golf ball. I think I am just good enough to tell between a range ball, and a top quality regulation golf ball. But between a similarly priced Titleist and a Callaway and Bridgestone... logic dictates that these things all have to work well, or else they will quickly be shown the door out of the golf ball market.

I can see how there's a big difference between urethane covered top level balls, and regular plastic covered bargain bin Top Flite or Pinnacle. But I am starting to wonder about the actual differences between tour-level balls and the most expensive non-tour balls.
Build a bridge and get over it.

User avatar
DougE
Posts: 1908
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:40 pm
Location: Maryland
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by DougE » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:08 pm

Go play regularly 3-4 a week with the same model ball for a few months. Then play with a different brand/model ball. You'll see the difference.

I can tell the difference in feel between a Pro V1, V1x and AVX, both off the tee and around the green. All urethane covered, Tour level balls. I play an AVX nearly everyday now. Pretty much since last November when I first got to test them during pre-market testing. I used to play a Pro V1 2017 model everyday. There is a very distinct difference between the AVX and Pro V1, and even more so with a Pro V1x. Where I notice the least difference is in feel off of irons, except that my AVX seems to go a bit further on average. I can not feel much difference between a Bridgestone B330RX and a Callaway ChromeSoft, but if I played those balls as much as I play my AVX, I'm sure I would feel the different nuances between them. Granted I play a lot, so I should be able to notice the difference. But, I believe anyone who can consistently find the center of their clubface, at least more often than not, can feel the difference in a ball, once they get used to playing one model of ball all the time, particularly if it is a urethane covered ball.

I'm sure some of you will poo poo my statement, but unless you play ONE ball all the time, and play that ball nearly every day of the week, for months, or even years at a stretch, while all the while hitting it consistently with the center of the clubface, you really are basing your poo-pooing on something you haven't truly tested properly, as I believe I have. You don't learn a ball by playing anything and everything. You learn a ball by playing it and only it over a longer stretch of time. And in my opinion, anyone who plays 'whatever' ball, they're doing their game a disservice over time. But, you do what you want. For me, if I need to hit a ball to a back pin with a pitching wedge, or 9 iron, I know that IF I HIT IT THE WAY I KNOW HOW TO, that AVX is going to stop in one very short bounce, usually a yard or less from its pitchmark. Yes, I may be able to do that with other balls, but because I don't KNOW what to expect from the myriad of other balls, my confidence will not be the same. I know exactly what I can do with MY ball.

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Dec 03, 2018 6:48 am

I'd make an argument that going after that back pin (even from as short as 60-70 yards) is doing your game a disservice. We, all non plus handicappers, should be trying to hit the center of the green on every shot outside of 50 yards.

So we are all doing a disservice to our game, be it different balls or pin seeking. What is your vice?
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:03 am

So I'm looking for the data to extrapolate. I'm trying to find it for a scratch golfer and have only found it for a 14 handicapper so far. But from 100 yards a 14 handicap can expect to be within 30' from the hole. From 135 yards they can expect to be 53' from the hole. Given most greens are around 5000 sq feet the distance between the center and edge of the green is about 40'.

What I've realized with my skytrak is that this isn't that much better for scratch golfers. From my observations based on the calculations in skytrak a scratch golfer is barely hitting the green from 150 yards on average (about 40' expected dispersion). From 100 yards it's over 20' for a scratch golfer.

This basically means we should all be aggressively aiming at the center of every green and being happy when we hit it.

https://blog.trackmangolf.com/performan ... e-amateur/
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
DougE
Posts: 1908
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:40 pm
Location: Maryland
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by DougE » Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:24 am

Oh, here we go. We can debate it all you want, and you can apply ability-generalizations to different level handicappers, but you don't know MY game, or, I'm sure many others' like me.

I often practice with a bunch of top-level junior amateurs who are all in the +1 to 2 handicap range. We all have similar control abilities from about 100-120 out. Unfortunately for me, they (the boys) can all hit it 290-310 off the tee. (Faith Choi, the number one junior girl in the state only hits it 250-260 off the tee.) And certainly they are much more consistent in their ballstriking with longer clubs than I am. Yet, from 100-125 out, that consistency difference is more negligible. I can back up a ball on the green with a wedge just like they can. I can put it close to a tucked pin like they can. But they hit all their clubs longer than I do. That is the difference. You don't need to be a plus handicap to be able to control the golf ball (or feel the different nuances of one to another).

If I can stick it close (within 15 feet or so) more than 50% of the time from 100-125 yards or so, and have proven it to myself over and over again, why shouldn't I go for it? You go for par 5 greens in two, even when you know the chances are slim and the risk of trouble is far greater. You've said so yourself in the past on here. To each his own. My game is probably much different than yours. I know my capabilities and my limitations, overall and day to day. I play a lot of golf. A real lot. Real golf. I don't typically make stupid shots or even low probability ones. I certainly make my fair share of bad ones, but rarely try things I don't think I can pull off with some degree of success, based on a high degree of success from similar shots and lies before. That's why I practice endlessly, on and around the course.

Fwiw, if I had the flexibility and strength to regularly hit the ball off the tee 50-70 yards further, you know, like you can, I feel my handicap just might be scratch or maybe even a plus-something. I have to putt on some of the hardest greens you'll ever see and hit from some of the thickest rough you'll ever play (in season). From the blue tees, I hit 45% of my greens in regulation, and usually have to do so from much further out than most other 5-7 indexers, due to the fact that I'm so far behind them with my tee shots and have to hit much longer irons on approach. (I average over 50% of GIR when playing white tees, but I rarely play them anymore since my game went up a few notches.) My game is about controlling the golf ball. The limited distance I can hit the ball at 63+ years old, and the extreme difficulty of our greens here are the reasons my handicap is so high (officially 5.9). It's certainly not because I shouldn't rely on hitting one close from 100 yards out. There are days when I play like an 18 handicap. I get in ruts, just like we all do. Those days, I know I should go for the center of the green and pray. But that is not the norm for me.

You may be making a general statement, but frankly, for the amount of effort I put into my game and the results I have achieved, particularly over the past couple years, I don't feel I fit into your generalization. Sorry if I sound defensive. I just don't think you are correct about me. I am extremely aware of all the little subtleties of this game, since I play it in one form or another virtually every day. I understand the swing. I understand course management, and most of all, I understand my own limitations, of which there are many. I know when I am doing my game a disservice. Going after a 125-yard back pin is not typically one of those times. Yes, I'm a bit cocky on this one, and maybe a bit touchy too. :fk

User avatar
bkuehn1952
Posts: 2384
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:08 pm
Location: The Frigid, Sunless Mitten
dogs: 0
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by bkuehn1952 » Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:29 am

I played a "Pinnacle Soft" (not sure of the exact appellation) for my two December rounds. I got them 9 months ago as part of the company's annual meeting golf activity. They seemed to "feel" okay and performed decently in the cold temperatures. I was bummed when I drowned the only one I had in bag. I have another 5 in the basement and they will get their chance for glory if any more cold weather golf opportunities arise.

I still smile to myself a little when I lose a ball in the muck and I recall the Beef's monograph from years ago. He had a ball he could not lose. He was concerned about losing his good soldier into some patch of "primordial ooze where he would not be seen for eons ..."

p.s. went back and found "A Tribute to Not Bill Earle's Ball". I had the paraphrase completely wrong.

"... While I try not to get weepy over mass-produced chunks of polymer, one's golf ball deserves better than to be abandoned in some putrid pond, possibly until the next geologic age."
Let's Play 36
GHIN Handicap: 7.8 … 9.2 … Let’s just say I am around a 14!

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:55 am

Sorry Doug, you are right and I was being very general with my statement.

What I really meant was that a good golfer would know what their personal dispersion is from various distances and play a shot that makes the most since for that dispersion.

For example the average PGA tour player's dispersion from 100-125 yards is about 20' from the hole. So when a pin is tucked on the back of the green (let's say 10' off the fringe), they should be attempting to hit the ball about 10' short of the flag. My "general" recommendation for a PGA tour player in this situation is to NOT go flag hunting.

Also average dispersion for a PGA tour player from 125-150 is about 22' so their goal would be 12' short of the same back pin.

So my general statement around not going flag hunting, also applies to PGA tour players.

So what is your average dispersion with your 9i and PW?
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
legitimatebeef
Posts: 5665
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:34 pm
Location: island off the coast of america
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by legitimatebeef » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:30 am

bkuehn1952 wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:29 am
I played a "Pinnacle Soft" (not sure of the exact appellation) for my two December rounds. I got them 9 months ago as part of the company's annual meeting golf activity. They seemed to "feel" okay and performed decently in the cold temperatures. I was bummed when I drowned the only one I had in bag. I have another 5 in the basement and they will get their chance for glory if any more cold weather golf opportunities arise.

I still smile to myself a little when I lose a ball in the muck and I recall the Beef's monograph from years ago. He had a ball he could not lose. He was concerned about losing his good soldier into some patch of "primordial ooze where he would not be seen for eons ..."

p.s. went back and found "A Tribute to Not Bill Earle's Ball". I had the paraphrase completely wrong.

"... While I try not to get weepy over mass-produced chunks of polymer, one's golf ball deserves better than to be abandoned in some putrid pond, possibly until the next geologic age."
:lolz hehe that's kind of amusing. I can sorta see why you miss that guy!
Build a bridge and get over it.

User avatar
legitimatebeef
Posts: 5665
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:34 pm
Location: island off the coast of america
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by legitimatebeef » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:37 am

Am seriously considering ordering the chub pack of "Kirkland Signature" bawls from the Price Club Costco Warehouse. You get like two dozen for $29 includes shipping. Don't give me that look. Yeah so I have given up on life, and golf. So what, you will too eventually. :fkno
Build a bridge and get over it.

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:42 am

legitimatebeef wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:37 am
Am seriously considering ordering the chub pack of "Kirkland Signature" bawls from the Price Club Costco Warehouse. You get like two dozen for $29 includes shipping. Don't give me that look. Yeah so I have given up on life, and golf. So what, you will too eventually. :fkno
Do it.

I do agree with Doug that playing 1 ball will help your game as I can see differences in different balls. Although I also don't see a big enough difference between a "discount" 3 or 4 piece urethane ball and the ProV's to justify the additional $25-$35 per dozen.
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
DougE
Posts: 1908
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:40 pm
Location: Maryland
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by DougE » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:46 am

I don't know my average. I just know I hit a lot of short irons close enough to have realistic birdie putts when my game is going well. One very cold round last week I hit three approach shots, all to under 3', and all ending in birdie. That is not unusual for me to get that many close in a round. It is unusual to get that many THAT close, though. The fact that I couldn't feel my fingers is what made it so special.

If I have 5 or 6 realistic chances at birdie, I played well. And that happens more than you might think. Making those putts is a different story, particularly on our very difficult greens. Giving myself a realistic chance is all I'm asking. And I feel I do that as well as most low handicappers from that range. You want to talk statistically, I probably lose 3-4 shots a round just due to the difficulty of our greens. Unfortunately, statistics don't make up for tough putts.

Flag hunting is not a bad thing when the green gives you good options for misses, assuming you have enough game to hit it regularly, consistently. I usually hit my short irons very much on line. They may be short or sometimes even long, but usually on line when my game is on. So if I have a back pin that is 125 yards, I will hit a shot I know will go no more than 125 yards assuming I hit it cleanly. If it's short, I will nearly always have an uphill putt. If it's long, which is rare, I live with the consequences. But I'd MUCH rather be putting uphill and straighter than having a major slider from the middle of the green somewhere. Don't get me wrong, I don't go after just any pin. I have to have a viable safe out in case I don't hit the shot I think I can. And that out is usually the fatter part of the green. Not always.

You and I are very different. You look at the numbers for everything. I play like we did before the numbers were ever available. I like it that way. Different generation. I do use information when it's helpful and available. But not at the expense of enjoying the game the way I learned to play it. It's not just about the numbers. It's about feel too. Knowing in your heart what the right play is. Sure, I will casually look at numbers to make adjustments here and there, but overall, I play this game by feel. I use a rangefinder and sprinkler heads. But I also use my senses and a large data base of experience with MY game, playing the game an excessive amount. If I'm 135 yards out in the rough with a good lie, the grain towards the green and an open approach to the front, I don't need anything other than experience to know to play a 125 yard club to allow it to roll out. If I don't want it to roll out too much, I know enough to hit it very high so it has some help stopping. If I'm hitting from a downhill lie, I know that the ball is going to come out lower, so I will expect more roll. There are a million little nuances to every shot that need to be considered when you are out there on the course. The fact that statistics show what my result is likely to be is bullshit to me. There's no way statistics know what shot I am facing. No rangefinder, gps, or golf simulator is going to tell me otherwise. I have made that same shot hundreds or thousands of times and know what to expect if I hit it properly with the golf ball I regularly play. That means much more than general statistics to me, both in my heart and in my head. Keep your statistics.

In my very strong opinion, simulations and or other technologies are only as good as reality if every lie and every swing and every situation and every climate is consistent. And that is not the game of golf. If that were the case, I wouldn't play golf. Technology is a great aid and I have nothing against it, and use it in many forms, both on and off the golf course. I just don't like statisticians, who don't play the game in the trenches like I do, suggesting what is best for my game. For me it is the equivalent of an engineer or academic telling a highly-experienced war-hardened soldier how to protect oneself in battle based on probabilities and statistics. Some are still going to step on an IED if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, but they also understand better than the guy who isn't battle-hardened what approach works best in reality.

Okay. Let's not argue. You are right for everyone else except me. How about that?

User avatar
DougE
Posts: 1908
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:40 pm
Location: Maryland
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by DougE » Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:54 am

legitimatebeef wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:37 am
Am seriously considering ordering the chub pack of "Kirkland Signature" bawls from the Price Club Costco Warehouse. You get like two dozen for $29 includes shipping. Don't give me that look. Yeah so I have given up on life, and golf. So what, you will too eventually. :fkno
A guy I play with uses the new version of the Kirkland. He says he loves it for the money. He also plays TP5x. Big hitter. Good player. 4-5 index. Plays most everyday. I'm giving you his good recommendation of the ball.

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:35 pm

DougE wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:46 am
Okay. Let's not argue. You are right for everyone else except me. How about that?
First, I agree I don't want to argue. I like a spirited debate, especially when people I respect have a different view point than me. It gives me a chance to really put my thoughts & beliefs to the test. So think of my retort less of being critical of you and more just being a justification for my thoughts. I respect you, and your game (hell you would kick my ass 95% of the time). I'm 100% open to being wrong, so I like it when you tell me why you disagree, it forces me to think about if I'm missing something.


Also to be fair I think we both agree that there is a benefit for numbers and feel in the game. We just probably disagree with where that optimal point is. I putt looking at the hole because I have a better control of the speed because my hand eye coordination works better when I see the target. This is purely a feel based technique. You use a range finder and sprinkler head to gather distance instead of just eyeballing it and saying "ah that looks like 150 yards."

DougE wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:46 am
I just don't like statisticians, who don't play the game in the trenches like I do, suggesting what is best for my game.
I assume you are referencing Mark Broadie here. To be fair I respect him but he didn't do anything that a few of us (my friends and I included) were already piecing together. He just had the PGA tour data and the grant money from Columbia to do it a little "cleaner." The person I think that is really pushing the edge as stats and game theory goes is Scott Fawcett. He is the person behind Decade golf, and he was a +5 handicap who qualified for the US Open as well as the "minor leagues." I believe he played a few tournaments on the PGA tour but never made it through final stages of q-school. So he does have some actual game behind him.

That being said, you mentioned the following which is exactly what I'm saying...
DougE wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:46 am
So if I have a back pin that is 125 yards, I will hit a shot I know will go no more than 125 yards assuming I hit it cleanly. If it's short, I will nearly always have an uphill putt. If it's long, which is rare, I live with the consequences.
This is the same argument I was making. In this example your target isn't the flag, it's actually short of the flag. You are hitting a club where the maximum distance is 125 yards, not the average distance. So your average is actually short of that, meaning your goal is to hit it short of the flag. This leaves room for variance, which is all I was saying people should be doing.

The big issue with a lot of golfers is they don't leave room for variance. People equate golf to target sports (like shooting a rifle), because there is a relatively small bulls eye down range. The issue is none of our golf swings (not even 2000 El Tigré Woods) is as precise as a rifle with very detailed specifications combined with a bullet with even more detailed specs. Our golf swings are more like a shot gun, where the bullet pattern spreads out over a circle, and anything inside that circle is pretty much "on target." Now how good of a golfer you are will change the size of that circle but all of us are shooting shot guns and not rifles.

DougE wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:46 am
In my very strong opinion, simulations and or other technologies are only as good as reality if every lie and every swing and every situation and every climate is consistent. And that is not the game of golf.
To be clear I completely agree with this. What i do use my simulator for is to tell me what I should expect 67% (1 standard deviation) of the time when I hit my 8i. That is a shot that carries 157 yards and is slightly right of "center" with a dispersion of around 20 yards. It's an elliptical dispersion with short right and long left more likely than long right and short left. That is my 8i "shotgun" spread. So assume I have a hole with water short and right, and for what ever reason I'm forced to hit an 8i. I'd move my "target" left until that circle is not in the water. Sure I might still hit one in the water, keep in mind this circle is only 67% of my shots. But anything inside of that circle is a "good shot" for me.

See the example hole it's #7 on my home course. This hole plays around 150-165 depending on the tees and hole location, but from the average tee it's about 155 to the center of the green. Perfect 8i distance. Assume the pin was at an extremely safe spot, dead center of the green and I went right at it. Check out where that leaves my 8i dispersion (red circle). Part of it is in the water. So I should either club up and hit a 7i here or move my "aim" point to the left. Given what is over this green, steep bank which would require a chip off a downhill lie with water long, I typically FEEL the right play is to just aim for the back left of the green with an 8i (blue dot). Now when I move my dispersion to be centered around that dot I'm no longer hitting balls in the water with 1 standard deviation from my normal 8i. Obviously any given day this could be a 5i to a PW depending on various factors. My dispersion circles and aim points would change for all of those clubs. That is the outside element and "feel" part of the game you mention. But the data part of the game is what tells me that I should be aiming at the "back" left of this green with 8i.
Attachments
shot.jpg
shot.jpg (105.36 KiB) Viewed 351 times
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
legitimatebeef
Posts: 5665
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:34 pm
Location: island off the coast of america
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by legitimatebeef » Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:49 pm

Golfers gettin ornery during winter season. That's the way it's supposed to be. Carry on.
Build a bridge and get over it.

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 3178
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: Bawlz

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:50 pm

To be clear I've hit an 8i on this hole that damn near crossed the lake where the cart path in the upper right is. So obviously I can hit them out of that circle.
Keep it short stupid.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests