Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

What type of player do you want to be?

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,133 ✭✭✭✭FixdePitchmark


    Ta.

    And interesting reading in the numbers. 75% of (since they are reading/posting here) pretty interested and informed on matters golf golfers, have unrealistic aspirations for how their golf scores will relate to their handicap, and will either be disappointed more than they should be, or will be tempted to the handicap darkside (as per the tale above) to rectify matters to their satisfaction.

    This is tongue in check.

    "Everybody else is doing it so why can't we".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 761 ✭✭✭Dayor Knight


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Possibly, but the point of the poll is to find out what type of handicap golfer you want to be, I thought it was pretty obvious from the poll options?

    Buffer zones mean nothing but yet you want to be consistent?:confused:

    No need to be confused. That's why I said "Having said that....". I'm at least partially accepting what you're getting at. But I've never played golf with buffer zones in mind. Do you think I need to focus on buffer zones to be consistent? I see them as part of a measuring system for determining my handicap, not an objective in their own right.
    Yes, the purpose of your poll is obvious. But it seems a bit loaded, to make a point. The question is a good one and suggests a broader consideration of what type of golfer we would like to be. I.m.h.o. Sometimes we need to think outside the tee box. 😊
    Doesn't mean you can't lash ahead with your poll .... No offence intended.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    If we're talking aspirations, then I'd aspire to option 1 but would like the handicap to be low.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    No need to be confused. That's why I said "Having said that....". I'm at least partially accepting what you're getting at. But I've never played golf with buffer zones in mind. Do you think I need to focus on buffer zones to be consistent? I see them as part of a measuring system for determining my handicap, not an objective in their own right.
    Yes, the purpose of your poll is obvious. But it seems a bit loaded, to make a point. The question is a good one and suggests a broader consideration of what type of golfer we would like to be. I.m.h.o. Sometimes we need to think outside the tee box. 😊
    Doesn't mean you can't lash ahead with your poll .... No offence intended.

    I think about buffer zones, I go out to play attempting to ensure that, if Im not going to be under par, I'll be at least within my buffer.
    I dont aim for buffer, I aim lower but not so low that Im bringing in above buffer possibilities.

    I dont see how its loaded though, what other options would you suggest?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    I think those options are fine in terms of a long term, non specific viewpoint.
    Personally speaking, in any given round I'd never have a target or aim for a particular score. I find when I'm playing regularly, I play my best when I don't know exactly what score I'm shooting and am simply playing each hole as it comes. I think when you start thinking about buffers there's a danger of getting too defensive, sometimes you have to reach for the stars. Don't limit what you might achieve, better to try and fail than not try at all, without being stupid about it on the course.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Interesting golfdigest stat.
    Here are some benchmarks: Tour players hit the green 50 percent of the time with a 3- or 4-iron. If you can achieve 20 percent, you should be breaking 90. For middle irons, the pros are at 65 percent, so shoot for 50 percent. With short irons, they're at 80 percent, so try for hitting two out of every three greens. That's a simple way to make stats work for you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Interesting golfdigest stat.

    Always love reading this piece....
    http://www.golfwrx.com/82327/golfers-have-ridiculous-expectations/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,140 ✭✭✭✭TheDoc


    I'd like to be solid and consistent, but as typical with me in just about anything, sport included, it's sporadic as ****.

    Similar to football and everything else I've played "competitively" one day I'll be absolutely godlike, the next day absolutely horrendous.

    Really struggle with consistency


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 262 ✭✭LinksLad


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I think about buffer zones, I go out to play attempting to ensure that, if Im not going to be under par, I'll be at least within my buffer.
    I dont aim for buffer, I aim lower but not so low that Im bringing in above buffer possibilities.
    100% - I don't know how not to think about buffer zones whenever my handicap is at xx.4 with a few holes to go. I start to think "right, out of the prizes, probably, but will need at least 3 points from these last 2 holes, so stay out of trouble".
    It helps me to focus on what is needed to avoid a handicap increase.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    LinksLad wrote: »
    100% - I don't know how not to think about buffer zones whenever my handicap is at xx.4 with a few holes to go. I start to think "right, out of the prizes, probably, but will need at least 3 points from these last 2 holes, so stay out of trouble".
    It helps me to focus on what is needed to avoid a handicap increase.

    For me I think its borne out of something a pro I played with one day said to me.
    I asked him what does he do if he looks like he is going to shoot 80.
    He said that he tries his best to shoot a 79.

    To some that means going for everthing, to me I don't change my plan on a good day versus a bad day. My plan is my plan for a good round, so why change it?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,333 ✭✭✭Tones69


    To be able to play par golf consistently on any golf course. Hcap wise i dunno im happy around 5/6 it would be cool to get to scratch or 1 but it would take a lot of practice to be able to stay there which might take the fun out if the game?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Merciful hour. Up to now 80% in the delusional categories now.

    The only consistency that you will ever achieve in golf is that you will consistently be inconsistent. The consistent golfer of people's dreams has never existed.
    Interesting chapters in Ted Jorgensen's 'The Physics of Golf', and similar in John Zumerchik's 'Newton on the tee - a good walk through the science of golf' on the topic, and the odds of shooting a good score and the variances in the average scores of even the best of the pros.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    @Greebo

    I see it like this.

    I'm a high handicap golfer so playing 'by numbers' as you seem to advocate it will not really work for me or only to some extent. And here is why.

    I'm off 16 now and like everyone else I'd like to get lower. So that means I will have to play a good number of holes for par, not for bogey. But since I am going to make some mistakes - even on the holes that I may play for bogey to begin with - I will have to aim for par on more holes than just two. Also I am a reasonably good ball striker for a 16, my shortcomings are elsewhere, mostly short game I guess. My home course is not an easy one and I can reach all but two in regulation and even those two I can reach now more often than not. (Which is not the same as saying that I will hit them in regulation of course.) But in theory I can. And I'm rarely that wild that I will not be at least in around the green in regulation.

    If I played ultra conservative to begin with I will take away my chances of getting par on holes that according to your theory I shouldn't be playing for par to begin with while I will still make mistakes on the holes I play for bogey. So effectively I am reducing my chances for a good score right off.

    That is assuming that I play percentages to some extent. I will not follow a bad shot with a stupid one and I will not take on something ridiculous. But I will take on shots I cant pull off possibly half the time knowing that a miss won't be so bad a miss anyway and I can still get on in reg + 1 and take my 2 putts from there most of the time or get up and down even.

    So I'm somewhere in between conservative enough but also upwards looking.

    Does that make sense even?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Boskowski wrote: »
    @Greebo

    I see it like this.

    I'm a high handicap golfer so playing 'by numbers' as you seem to advocate it will not really work for me or only to some extent. And here is why.

    I'm off 16 now and like everyone else I'd like to get lower. So that means I will have to play a good number of holes for par, not for bogey. But since I am going to make some mistakes - even on the holes that I may play for bogey to begin with - I will have to aim for par on more holes than just two. Also I am a reasonably good ball striker for a 16, my shortcomings are elsewhere, mostly short game I guess. My home course is not an easy one and I can reach all but two in regulation and even those two I can reach now more often than not. (Which is not the same as saying that I will hit them in regulation of course.) But in theory I can. And I'm rarely that wild that I will not be at least in around the green in regulation.

    If I played ultra conservative to begin with I will take away my chances of getting par on holes that according to your theory I shouldn't be playing for par to begin with while I will still make mistakes on the holes I play for bogey. So effectively I am reducing my chances for a good score right off.

    That is assuming that I play percentages to some extent. I will not follow a bad shot with a stupid one and I will not take on something ridiculous. But I will take on shots I cant pull off possibly half the time knowing that a miss won't be so bad a miss anyway and I can still get on in reg + 1 and take my 2 putts from there most of the time or get up and down even.

    So I'm somewhere in between conservative enough but also upwards looking.

    Does that make sense even?

    Yep it makes sense, but I think you are misunderstanding my argument.
    If there is little to no downside in going for a shot then its green light all the way in my book.

    Also, you dont need to make a heap of pars, 3 pars and the rest as bogeys (you are near the green in two in regulation) gets you 37 points and thats without those extra few pars you will get with a good chip or good putt.

    A good example in my club is the 17th. Uphill par 5, OOB on the right tree lined on the left.
    I can make the green in two with an average drive and average 3 wood if not rescue.
    However, if I dont hit that good drive, Im probbaly blocked out and punching sideways. If I do hit an ok drive I still have to hit a good wood to get to the green and hope I dont slice it OOB or pull it into the trees.
    So, I dont go for it in two, ever.
    since Im not going for it in two, why would I hit a driver off the tee? It makes no sense. So now I hit a rescue or 4i off the tee, short of all the fairway bunkers and back enough so that if I do push or pull it, I still have a shot up the fairway, over the trees.
    A 5i now leaves me 100M from the green, pretty much a routine par from then everytime, with a good chance of a birdie with a good wedge.
    I play with people every week who cannot and do not go for it in two, but still hit driver into the trees or the bunker and then struggle to make a 6. Thats just not sensible golf in my book.

    One point, you say that your short game is bad but also that you rarely miss enough to not be near enough to the green in regulation.
    That coupled with being an ok ball striker means if you want to get down, work on your short game. There is no other option. You are never, ever, ever going to get to the stage where you are consistently hitting greens with your 3i and holing birdie putts...its just not possible, for anyone. Read the last link that Russman sent, your expectations are most likely way off compared to your ability.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    I think we're on the same page really then.

    Our second is an easy par 5. However, there is a creek running in front of the green and long is dead. Also you will have to cut a big high drive over the trees off the tee to get into a reasonably good position to get on in two. And with reasonably good - with the danger around the green - I'm talking say 5 or 6 iron for your second shot.
    Now a draw or even straight drive may get you into trouble. In all the years I'm a member there I have only seen people getting on in 2 twice. Both were very good ball strikers/low men hitting that big high cut over the tress. And even for them I'd say it didn't really make sense.

    No brainer really.

    But yet I see everybody taking driver off the tee and at best it will get them into a very dicey position for on in two (best ever 3 or 5 wood). At worst it will get them into trouble.

    I will not hit driver there ever. Into the wind 3 wood, calm or down wind hybrid or 3 or 4 iron. I'm wise enough for those kinds of decisions.

    Edit: My short game isn't bad, its solid as in I can get onto the green nearing the flag many times. Onto the green practically all the time. When I say 'short game' I mean its not really good as in threatening up and down a lot, which isn't the same as bad.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,333 ✭✭✭Tones69


    As jack nicklaus says. Know your limits, its when you take on shots you know are out of your comfort zone is when the high scores creep in. Most problems i see with higher hcaps is taking on things they have no hope of pulling off. Bad course management etc etc. Follow up one mistake with another by not taking their medicine. Obviously we all want to make that par but if ur tee shot doesnt leave u in a good spot then play it safe. I think im gone off topic here btw ha


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,333 ✭✭✭Tones69


    Boskowski wrote: »
    I think we're on the same page really then.

    Our second is an easy par 5. However, there is a creek running in front of the green and long is dead. Also you will have to cut a big high drive over the trees off the tee to get into a reasonably good position to get on in two. And with reasonably good - with the danger around the green - I'm talking say 5 or 6 iron for your second shot.
    Now a draw or even straight drive may get you into trouble. In all the years I'm a member there I have only seen people getting on in 2 twice. Both were very good ball strikers/low men hitting that big high cut over the tress. And even for them I'd say it didn't really make sense.

    No brainer really.

    But yet I see everybody taking driver off the tee and at best it will get them into a very dicey position for on in two (best ever 3 or 5 wood). At worst it will get them into trouble.

    I will not hit driver there ever. Into the wind 3 wood, calm or down wind hybrid or 3 or 4 iron. I'm wise enough for those kinds of decisions.

    Edit: My short game isn't bad, its solid as in I can get onto the green nearing the flag many times. Onto the green practically all the time. When I say 'short game' I mean its not really good as in threatening up and down a lot, which isn't the same as bad.

    Soooo what is easy about this par 5? Lol


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    Tones69 wrote: »
    Soooo what is easy about this par 5? Lol

    Haha, fair enough.

    It's easy when you hit hybrid off the tee (can't reach trouble) into the apex of the dogleg right, pop a 5, 6 or 7 iron down to 100m and wedge into a big wide green.

    Its the shape of the hole. While easy in 3 its near impossible in 2.

    Edit: Now that I think of it. Easy may be an exaggeration, not difficult is probably more fitting. Its index 9 or 10.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,333 ✭✭✭Tones69


    I played a 575 yard par 5 yesterday into a gale wind. I had to hit driver and two 4 irons i sh*t you not. Wasnt a "difficult" par 5 just played about 700 yards lol. Ran off with par happy out


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭Miley Byrne


    That escalated quickly!!!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement