Amateur approach shot trends, reliable studies, fallacies, ramifications, etc...

[JonMA1]

I’m a 20 and my most common miss is short by a long shot. My miss is catching the ball fat which is responsible for me missing the green short quite a bit. I don’t think clubbing up would really help me fix this as my chunks are pretty bad.

You're right, clubbing up is not the solution for shots that fall short due to very poor contact, IMO. I've been arguing this for a long time and there's just no getting through to those who believe not pulling enough club is always the root cause. They look at the numbers without giving it very much (any) critical thought and absolutely refuse to consider the logic from the opposing view. They hold on to what they've believed for decades and that's that.

No doubt, many golfers do not know their distances. But there are many of us who track our stats and adjust depending on wind, elevation, lie, etc. I can't speak for many others, but I pull the club that will give me the distance with "decent", "ok" or "typical" contact, not the distance from a pure strike and certainly not the club that will give me the distance if duffed.

The higher percentage of shots that fall short are not always a result of failing to pull the right club. Since there's a 3 out of 4 chance of missing a green, I'm going to play the miss that will avoid penalties. If there's water in front of the green, I'm pulling more club. If there are woods directly behind the green, I'm ok with a miss short.

It's absolutely no different than any other risk/reward scenario. Yet, because the pros do something a certain way ("GIR are king"), that stat or method should apply to those of us who fail to break 90.

 

[Scorp]

Hmm... my approach shots are normally short. That's mainly due to fat shots. When I club up for more distance, typically it's a fat shot. Or the rare occasions when I hit the club face pure and the ball flies over the green or lands in a bunker.

 

[jvbart]

You're right, clubbing up is not the solution for shots that fall short due to very poor contact, IMO. I've been arguing this for a long time and there's just no getting through to those who believe not pulling enough club is always the root cause. They look at the numbers without giving it very much (any) critical thought and absolutely refuse to consider the logic from the opposing view. They hold on to what they've believed for decades and that's that.

No doubt, many golfers do not know their distances. But there are many of us who track our stats and adjust depending on wind, elevation, lie, etc. I can't speak for many others, but I pull the club that will give me the distance with "decent", "ok" or "typical" contact, not the distance from a pure strike and certainly not the club that will give me the distance if duffed.

The higher percentage of shots that fall short are not always a result of failing to pull the right club. Since there's a 3 out of 4 chance of missing a green, I'm going to play the miss that will avoid penalties. If there's water in front of the green, I'm pulling more club. If there are woods directly behind the green, I'm ok with a miss short.

It's absolutely no different than any other risk/reward scenario. Yet, because the pros do something a certain way ("GIR are king"), that stat or method should apply to those of us who fail to break 90.

Exactly! I already try to pull a club that will put me on the back of the green in most scenarios to account for something just off the sweet spot but my short miss is digging the club into the ground before contact. More club doesn’t fix that.

 

[Hamfist]

They relate to each other in general trends and the differences highlight strengths and weaknesses. Like at the different types of courses and yardages you mentioned. I'm always a terrible example for these things, and probably not the kind of data the OP is looking for so I'll hold off the screenshots, but comparing my overall percentages like @GraniteRoost posted, and then switching it to certain courses, or certain dates playing certain clubs, or since I've been actively trying something different can really show you things about your game you might not realize during the playing.

I don't need a Devil-spawned gizmo to tell me I stink. I have eyes.

And, so I don't get a "post something actually related to the thread" beatdown from the higher-ups, I have a ShotScope (olde timer) that I am terrible at using. I really will try to track some stats this year. From foggy memory, I hit a lot of approaches short.

 

[OldandStiff]

Sure, I've looked at plots of shot patterns quite a few times with various shot-tracking technologies. Incontrovertibly anywhere from 100 yards on out there will be more shots "short" than in the direction "left", "right" or "long". If for no other reason, total mishits/duffs/chunks/fatted shots are always short and I hit some of those in every round.

The problem is, there's no information in most app generated data to answer the question of what is the shot pattern with shots that are well struck. But that's the information that matters when you are strategizing about club selection, right?

If it's 120 yards to the hole for me a decently well struck 9-iron will get there or maybe be a couple yards long. Yet I have data showing that 22% of my shots from 100-125 yards come up "short" while only 4% of them come up "long". The problem is I don't know how many of those "short" 22% were shots that resulted from taking too little club. I mean when I look at the plot, there are some shots ending up 30+ yards short from 100-125 yards. Does that mean I should hit three extra clubs every time I'm 120 yards from the hole?

I think automatically collected data on tendency patterns can inform WHAT YOU NEED TO WORK ON with your swing. I do not think that sort of undifferentiated data can be interpreted to tell you what club you ought to be pulling for a certain shot. That decision requires the context of the shot and it requires knowing how all those shots represented on the plot ended up where they are.

In terms of "context" I won't even go into the obvious issue that on most courses (including all the ones I play) the ideal shot distribution is probably to be short 10x as often as you are long because 15-20 yards "short" probably means a routine little chip or pitch shot (or even putt from off the green) while 15-20 yards "long" is most often a double bogey or worse.

There are definitely tracking apps that let you label a shot as shank/duff/fat/whatever and have ways to separate that data. I wouldn't suggest this because I think it's counterproductive, but if you really want to only know your results on well struck shots, you can always choose to only log those shots.

 

[DG_1234]

Exactly! I already try to pull a club that will put me on the back of the green in most scenarios to account for something just off the sweet spot but my short miss is digging the club into the ground before contact. More club doesn’t fix that.

If you club for a mishit leaving you to the back edge of the green that's good. Most amateurs club for a well struck pure shot that would leave the ball hole high.
As for "more club fixing this or that", club selection does influence and, or, promote particular swings. Specifically, if one gets in the habit of always taking more club, all day long, round after round, before long his swing will naturally improve simply because he no longer has the stress-pressure of needing to strike too little club perfect.

 

[McRock]

As to the OP, my misses are short most of the time because long is typically bad, especially at my home course. It's just the way it is.

I don't think anyone should 'club for a mishit.' Doing so just means it's in their mind that they are going to mishit the ball, and so they probably will.

I think amateurs (myself included) would benefit from better course management, and in particular, giving up attacking every pin. As an example, let's say an 18 cap is out there, and he's 140 yards from the front, 155 to the pin, and 160 to the back. He hits his 7 iron 150 yards, and he hits his 6 iron 160 yards. He could muscle up on the 7 iron. Maybe he gets it, or maybe he yanks it left, or chunks it. He could choke down on a 6 iron to take 5 yards off, but most of the time when he does that, he just hits it thin. What our person should be doing is just hit a normal 7 iron. He probably likes his stock 7 iron more than any other club in the bag anyways. Just hit a normal 7 iron and take the 15 foot putt, all day. Not every shot has to drop right on the pin.

The same goes if he were short sided. Say the pin is at 145 yards, 140 to front, 160 to back. He can hit the stock 8 iron to the front of the green. Depending on the slope, it may be advantageous. If he comes up short, whatevs. He has an easy chip to get up and down. Or, if the slope of the green dictates it, just hit the 7 iron.

My point is, the amateurs problem is trying to hit shots they don't normally hit, when they could just hit their 'normal' shot to a safe part of a green.

~Rock

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

As to the OP, my misses are short most of the time because long is typically bad, especially at my home course. It's just the way it is.

I don't think anyone should 'club for a mishit.' Doing so just means it's in their mind that they are going to mishit the ball, and so they probably will.

Putting yourself in a position of *hoping* you mishit a shot because a good strike will end up in trouble? I can't think of a quicker way to drive yourself totally insane.

 

[Hamfist]

Putting yourself in a position of *hoping* you mishit a shot because a good strike will end up in trouble? I can't think of a quicker way to drive yourself totally insane.

I can! Take up golf.

 

[DG_1234]

Putting yourself in a position of *hoping* you mishit a shot because a good strike will end up in trouble? I can't think of a quicker way to drive yourself totally insane.

No player should be "hoping to mishit the shot". Good club selection is about a player being aware of his shot tendencies and accordingly selecting a club.
If a players tendency is to mishit a 7-iron 85% of the time he swings it then it makes good sense to swing a 6-iron instead of a 7-iron. Otherwise, the player will leave his ball short of the greens all day long (which is most typical of amateur play).
It's wrong thinking to be concerned that " over the green at my course is trouble". The reality is that every course has "trouble" long of the green(s) ; it's an out of position area where balls are not expected to lay. But "long of the green" is the last thing an amateur who consistently leaves his ball 5 to 25 yards short of greens all day long should be concerned about. In other words one who who keeps clubbing himself with a 7-iron and leaving his ball 10 yards short of the green could swing 6-iron (and probably 5-iron) without leaving his ball long of the green.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

No player should be "hoping to mishit the shot". Good club selection is about a player being aware of his shot tendencies and accordingly selecting a club.
If a players tendency is to mishit a 7-iron 85% of the time he swings it then it makes good sense to swing a 6-iron instead of a 7-iron. Otherwise, the player will leave his ball short of the greens all day long (which is most typical of amateur play).
It's wrong thinking to be concerned that " over the green at my course is trouble". The reality is that every course has "trouble" long of the green(s) ; it's an out of position area where balls are not expected to lay. But "long of the green" is the last thing an amateur who consistently leaves his ball 5 to 25 yards short of greens all day long should be concerned about. In other words one who who keeps clubbing himself with a 7-iron and leaving his ball 10 yards short of the green could swing 6-iron (and probably 5-iron) without leaving his ball long of the green.

Are you talking about someone who has a severely inflated idea of his carry distances with each club?

If not, then you and I obviously play very different courses. A 7-iron that is "5 to 25 yard short" OF THE GREEN means it is something like a 30-yard mishit (depending on where the hole is cut on the green). That is just an awful shot.

That means hitting 6-iron he's going to still miss the green short with a serious mishit like that. Yet the 6-iron can now also (unlikely but possible) go over the green on a solid hit.

So if not being short on mishits is the goal, he'd better hit 5-iron at least. And even then, by the time you get down to 24 degree of loft my mishits are really, really short. So there's still going to be plenty of mishit 5-irons (from 7-iron distance) that barely reach the green.

You can not course manage or strategize your way out of duffed shots being short. It's just not possible. That's what duffed shots do. And trust me, a swing that's going to often come up 30 yards short with a 7-iron is going to come up even shorter, more often with a 6-iron or 7-iron.

The only way I can shoot decent enough scores to make the game enjoyable (i.e. keeping most of my rounds in the 80's to low 90's) is to play a course without forced carries in front of every green. And then play a set of tees forward enough that I'm not trying to hit hybrids and fairway woods into all the Par 4's.

I've certainly played courses over the years where I was forced to either lay up from 160 yards (because it was a 150-yard carry over water off a downslope) or take 2-3 extra clubs and deliberately blow approach shots over the green to avoid penal water and bunkers in front. It's OK for an adventure once in a while but I can't see how anyone would enjoy it on a regular basis.

My home course is set up so that all but a handful of holes can be played with a conservative strategy. Choose a club and an aiming point such that an iron shot that's hit well leaves a reasonable length putt and an iron shot that's duffed leaves it short of the green from and angle that accepts a bump and run or simple chip shot. If I played 120+ times a year some place where that strategy isn't available, I'd probably grow tired of the frustration and just not play much.

So again, my contention is that trying to come up long as often as you come up short on approach shots is a fools errand. If I literally never got an approach shot past the hole or if my well struck shots averaged 5-10 yards short of the hole then I'd know something was wrong with the way I'm clubbing myself. But hitting longer and longer clubs trying to force awful mishits to end up on the green can't possibly work.

 

[JonMA1]

Good club selection is about a player being aware of his shot tendencies and accordingly selecting a club.
If a players tendency is to mishit a 7-iron 85% of the time he swings it then it makes good sense to swing a 6-iron instead of a 7-iron. Otherwise, the player will leave his ball short of the greens all day long (which is most typical of amateur play).

You have it wrong if you assume we are not already doing that (pulling the club that take into account a mishit) or that all mishits are the same.

Most of us who keep track are taking that into consideration and are pulling the club that will get us the yardage with a slight mishit. The shots that fall short are a combination of 1) worse than normal contact - for which you really can't play to, 2) a miss short is the correct miss, or 3) taking more club increases the change of missing long, left or right on holes that will not allow for those misses. You incorrectly assume the only difference between a 7i and a 6i is the distance.

I know you won't consider this opinion to be useful because you made your mind up a long time ago. You're too good at this game and probably have been playing too long to consider those of us who struggle maybe doing so as a result of something other than a lack of knowledge in regards to our abilities.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

Not that dissimilar to a lot of other mid-double-digit handicappers, here's the stats from 25-30 rounds using my most recent shot-tracking app.

75-100 yards
32% short, 8%long, 16% left, 8% right

100-125 yards
32% short, 8% long, 19% left, 12% right

125-150 yards
36% short, 2% long, 15% left, 16% right

150-175 yards
57% short, 8% long, 9% left, 12% right

175-200 yards
80% short, never long, 6% left, 6% right

200+ yards
Always short (I only hit my driver about 200 yards on average).

Looking through those numbers I see about what I'd expect for someone with a typical high handicapper's iron and wedge game. Being long about 8% of the time (or about once a round) from most distances seems like a reasonable tradeoff for how penal it is over the greens at my home course.

The one anomaly seems to be the 125-150 yard bucket. I seem to almost never hit the ball too far with an 8i/7i which could mean two things. I may be overestimating my good-shot distances with those clubs. Or it may be because that's the distance bracket where most of my Par 3 shots fall and I have a different missed-shot pattern when the ball is teed up. Something to ponder, anyway.

 

[Daddio]

Thank you all for taking the time to dig into this, I'm learning a lot. I'll post results of my couple month study after responding specifically to a few quotes but a lot of us are in agreement that short misses are most common, are also preferable to long, and significantly poor contact contribute more to coming up short than clubbing decisions do.

My short and long missed usually add up close to one of my right or left totals. Usually the right, which is usually slightly less than left. It varies a little over time, and I keep an eye on recent trends. Especially if I'm working on something or using new clubs.

Earlier this year I was going over data looking for things to work on - and you grinters might appreciate this if you rummage around your stats - and find out that with my short irons, off a tee (par 3's) I didn't have a single hit or miss right of center line on the green. Not one. The general numbers were excellent, but I track proximities, and to see all the dots on the left was shocking. Sooo, I overswing with short irons off the tee, and need to work on ball placement and tee height with them too. Who knew? Lol

Love that you're going down the rabbit hole @Daddio . Always something to learn in there.

What an outstanding example of the insight that can be available when we really dig into and differentiate our data. LOVE THIS and BTW I live down that rabbit hole

Because reading the themes of responses seems to be relatable in the replies understand you tracking it, l imagine if you typically play a course that would relatively straight hole configurations for example and your data capture is x percentage . You play another course and it may have doglegs left and right predominately so the shots you play would be characteristically further away ? Greater margin of error... Btw, l don’t data capture or analyse, or any apps like grint what ever that is ..l do have Garmin 60 watch , however. l play approx every 3 weeks , so many of life’s other commitments absorb time as you probably know .

Thank you, but I really do think our trends translate accurately across differing holes and courses. Some holes/greens/pins might require extra caution relating to certain misses though, true, but that data can be dug out and analyzed as such. FWIW the 24 rounds in my own study included 10 golf courses. I'm a Garmin S60 user too. Relied heavily on it to go back in and recreate specifics of each approach shot as I sometimes didn't get a chance to enter data into my spreadsheet until a day or 3 later. I do wish I had also included course and weather conditions though. Soft, firm, just punched, wet, cold, how windy, what direction, pin position etc... Would've been easy at the time and would've offered more to analyze. I also empathize with your limited time. Retired empty nester now so blessed with time, but remember giving up golf for almost 20 years due to time constraints ... it does get better

They relate to each other in general trends and the differences highlight strengths and weaknesses. Like at the different types of courses and yardages you mentioned. I'm always a terrible example for these things, and probably not the kind of data the OP is looking for so I'll hold off the screenshots, but comparing my overall percentages like @GraniteRoost posted, and then switching it to certain courses, or certain dates playing certain clubs, or since I've been actively trying something different can really show you things about your game you might not realize during the playing.

Yours is exactly the detailed analysis I'm looking for, big thank you. I'm able to break out my results by course, hole# or par, lie, yardage, club hit, shot result, score etc... I realize that isn't for most but as a retired R&D scientist I actually enjoy it all.

For several decades now Tour pros have been saying that the most common fault they see from amateurs during Pro Am's is club selection, taking too little club for approach shots.

This rings a bell. I think you might be the THPer who provided the impetus for me to dig into my own tendencies in an earlier thread that was popular in here 2+ months ago? Thank you, I'm glad I looked into my own game more closely. I didn't think I was the golfer these pros were referring to at the time (still don't) but the effort was beneficial.

Sure, I've looked at plots of shot patterns quite a few times with various shot-tracking technologies. Incontrovertibly anywhere from 100 yards on out there will be more shots "short" than in the direction "left", "right" or "long". If for no other reason, total mishits/duffs/chunks/fatted shots are always short and I hit some of those in every round.

The problem is, there's no information in most app generated data to answer the question of what is the shot pattern with shots that are well struck. But that's the information that matters when you are strategizing about club selection, right?

I think automatically collected data on tendency patterns can inform WHAT YOU NEED TO WORK ON with your swing. I do not think that sort of undifferentiated data can be interpreted to tell you what club you ought to be pulling for a certain shot. That decision requires the context of the shot and it requires knowing how all those shots represented on the plot ended up where they are.

Precisely. I don't think many of us seasoned golfers rely on 100% 'pured strikes' but we also don't play for significant mishits either. Just decent solid contact ... and then so many other factors tie into our clubbing decisions.

If you club for a mishit leaving you to the back edge of the green that's good. Most amateurs club for a well struck pure shot that would leave the ball hole high.
As for "more club fixing this or that", club selection does influence and, or, promote particular swings. Specifically, if one gets in the habit of always taking more club, all day long, round after round, before long his swing will naturally improve simply because he no longer has the stress-pressure of needing to strike too little club perfect.

I disagree that MOST ams club for pure shots to only get hole high. Some do sure, but I do wish more of those golfers joined our $$$ games I just don't see that. I'm guessing it's mostly newer golfers clubbing for perfection. Or maybe those being extra careful to never overshoot a green and the resultant scorecard implications?

As to the OP, my misses are short most of the time because long is typically bad, especially at my home course. It's just the way it is.

I don't think anyone should 'club for a mishit.' Doing so just means it's in their mind that they are going to mishit the ball, and so they probably will.

I think amateurs (myself included) would benefit from better course management, and in particular, giving up attacking every pin. As an example, let's say an 18 cap is out there, and he's 140 yards from the front, 155 to the pin, and 160 to the back. He hits his 7 iron 150 yards, and he hits his 6 iron 160 yards. He could muscle up on the 7 iron. Maybe he gets it, or maybe he yanks it left, or chunks it. He could choke down on a 6 iron to take 5 yards off, but most of the time when he does that, he just hits it thin. What our person should be doing is just hit a normal 7 iron. He probably likes his stock 7 iron more than any other club in the bag anyways. Just hit a normal 7 iron and take the 15 foot putt, all day. Not every shot has to drop right on the pin.

The same goes if he were short sided. Say the pin is at 145 yards, 140 to front, 160 to back. He can hit the stock 8 iron to the front of the green. Depending on the slope, it may be advantageous. If he comes up short, whatevs. He has an easy chip to get up and down. Or, if the slope of the green dictates it, just hit the 7 iron.

My point is, the amateurs problem is trying to hit shots they don't normally hit, when they could just hit their 'normal' shot to a safe part of a green.

~Rock

Excellent post Rock. Thanks. It really hits at how I make my own clubbing decisions and I too am very susceptible the 'if I expect to mishit it I almost certainly will' bugaboo.

OK here's how my study broke out: 24 rounds / 10 courses / 433 approach shots (Payne's Valley has 19 holes)
I came up WAY SHORT (20 yards are more) 29 times (6.7%). 6 were at least in part due to catching limbs. I was +28 on those 29 shots (+0.97)
I came up SHORT of green (<20 yards) 56 times (12.9%). 5 were at least in part due to catching limbs. I was +43 on those 56 shots (+0.77)
I missed LATERALLY (but green high) 90 times (20.8%). 1 likely due to catching a limb. I was +69 on those 90 shots (+0.77) Identical to SHORT
I ended up on FRONT FRINGE 18 times (4.2%). I was +2 on those 18 shots (+0.11)
I HIT GREEN (but at least 12 feet SHORT of pin) 69 times (15.9%). I was +4 on those 69 shots (+0.06)
I HIT GREEN (within 12 feet of hole high) 53 times (12.2%). I was -6 on those 53 shots (-0.11)
I HIT GREEN (but at least 12 feet LONG of pin) 63 times (14.5%). I was +5 on those 63 shots (+0.08)
I ended up on BACK FRINGE 15 times (3.5%). I was +1 on those 15 shots (+0.07)
I came up LONG of green (<20 yards) 29 times (6.7%). I was +33 on those 29 shots (+1.14)
I came up WAY LONG (20 yards are more) 11 times (2.5%). I was +23 on those 11 shots (+2.09)

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

I disagree that MOST ams club for pure shots to only get hole high. Some do sure, but I do wish more of those golfers joined our $$$ games I just don't see that. I'm guessing it's mostly newer golfers clubbing for perfection. Or maybe those being extra careful to never overshoot a green and the resultant scorecard implications?

I never know in these discussions what kind of "amateurs" are supposedly being discussed. I play mostly with older guys (and some who aren't just "older" but "old") who, in the words of that Clint Eastwood character, know their limitations. So yeah, when I say I choose clubs based on how far a well struck shot travels I do not mean I play a 9-iron from 148 yards because I remember that time back in 1997 when I hit 9-iron past the hole on a 150 yard Par 3.

But on a very few occasions I have played with golfers who for whatever reason thinks what iron they hit from a certain distance somehow speaks to their manhood or their quality as a golfer. So I'm sure the proverbial "tour pros" or anywhere else have run across their share of testosterone driven ego cases who attempt unrealistic distances with their short irons. It's just foreign to my experience which is more along the lines of guys who've a) got nothing left to prove feats-of-strength wise and b) have played the same 18 holes a few thousand times and know just when their 7-iron is a better choice than their 6-iron.

OK here's how my study broke out: 24 rounds / 10 courses / 433 approach shots (Payne's Valley has 19 holes)
I came up WAY SHORT (20 yards are more) 29 times (6.7%). 6 were at least in part due to catching limbs. I was +28 on those 29 shots (+0.97)
I came up SHORT of green (<20 yards) 56 times (12.9%). 5 were at least in part due to catching limbs. I was +43 on those 56 shots (+0.77)
I missed LATERALLY (but green high) 90 times (20.8%). 1 likely due to catching a limb. I was +69 on those 90 shots (+0.77) Identical to SHORT
I ended up on FRONT FRINGE 18 times (4.2%). I was +2 on those 18 shots (+0.11)
I HIT GREEN (but at least 12 feet SHORT of pin) 69 times (15.9%). I was +4 on those 69 shots (+0.06)
I HIT GREEN (within 12 feet of hole high) 53 times (12.2%). I was -6 on those 53 shots (-0.11)
I HIT GREEN (but at least 12 feet LONG of pin) 63 times (14.5%). I was +5 on those 63 shots (+0.08)
I ended up on BACK FRINGE 15 times (3.5%). I was +1 on those 15 shots (+0.07)
I came up LONG of green (<20 yards) 29 times (6.7%). I was +33 on those 29 shots (+1.14)
I came up WAY LONG (20 yards are more) 11 times (2.5%). I was +23 on those 11 shots (+2.09)

That's a solid way of looking at approach results.

One point I'd like to make is the while the per-shot averages (+0.97, etc) might seem an obvious place to start evaluating the effect of being long/short/whatever it's really the cumulative totals (+28, +43, etc.) that tell the story.

In a sense the per-shot average tells you where the most leverage might be for the results of one shot (i.e. if you could on just one occasion have come up BACK FRINGE instead of WAY LONG that would have saved two full strokes). But the totals give a sense of the overall impact on your game. It turns out even with that massive +2.09 for WAY LONG it happens so infrequently that it has only cost you +23 strokes over 24 rounds.

The killer by that latter metric is that +69 (2-1/2 strokes per round) from lateral misses. It is fairly costly per-shot and it happens a lot. So you could argue that the most bang for the buck in working on your swing is to not miss left-right so often (of course that's easier said than fixed I know).

 

[DG_1234]

I know you won't consider this opinion to be useful because you made your mind up a long time ago. You're too good at this game and probably have been playing too long to consider those of us who struggle maybe doing so as a result of something other than a lack of knowledge in regards to our abilities.

A Tour player (or any player accustomed to shooting par or better) , always proclaim that high scoring amateurs leave their approach shots short of the greens all day long. Consequently, "taking more club" is the obvious answer and has been for 100 years.
Remember, if the goal is to avoid leaving the ball short of the green, regardless of a player's swing faults, taking more club is a pragmatic solution. Otherwise, the balls will continue to be left short of the greens.
I understand amateurs are prone to say "no club will be enough for my duffed, fat shot", and that is certainly true. But duffing-fatting shots is a separate subject and the solution for that is related to learning proper technique, committing to practice same etc...

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

A Tour player (or any player accustomed to shooting par or better) , always proclaim that high scoring amateurs leave their approach shots short of the greens all day long. Consequently, "taking more club" is the obvious answer and has been for 100 years.
Remember, if the goal is to avoid leaving the ball short of the green, regardless of a player's swing faults, taking more club is a pragmatic solution. Otherwise, the balls will continue to be left short of the greens.
I understand amateurs are prone to say "no club will be enough for my duffed, fat shot", and that is certainly true. But duffing-fatting shots is a separate subject and the solution for that is related to learning proper technique, committing to practice same etc...

Saying the goal is not leaving the ball short of the green is what we're disagreeing with, I think.

My goal is to minimize the number of strokes it's going to take to hole out, given the situation and given the swing I showed up with today. If my best shots end up pin high and my worst shots end up in the fairway or rough 15 yards short of the green that's pretty much a score-minimizing optimum, right there.

But looking at the results after fact the "obvious" answer is to see a shot 15 yards short of the green and say, "Wow if you'd just hit 5 instead of 7 there you'd be pin high". Well yeah. But that's about like saying 99% of putts left short don't go in.

If I set the goal as "don't be short" then sure I'll overclub all day long. But it's be careful what you wish for. Of all the places a shot can end up, near the hole is the best, then below the hole slightly short is almost as good and not too far down the list is 5-10 yards short of the green.

Then the list gets much more costly if we start bringing in 20 yards long or pin high and 25 yards right or left.

Kind of like when someone is slicing the ball into the right woods from an open stance with a looping OOT swing path and wide open club face. For 100 years people have been saying "Just aim lefter" even though aiming farther left will only exacerbate the root problem. Every problem has an obvious solution. Trouble is, not ever obvious solution is correct.

 

[Daddio]

That's a solid way of looking at approach results.

One point I'd like to make is the while the per-shot averages (+0.97, etc) might seem an obvious place to start evaluating the effect of being long/short/whatever it's really the cumulative totals (+28, +43, etc.) that tell the story.

In a sense the per-shot average tells you where the most leverage might be for the results of one shot (i.e. if you could on just one occasion have come up BACK FRINGE instead of WAY LONG that would have saved two full strokes). But the totals give a sense of the overall impact on your game. It turns out even with that massive +2.09 for WAY LONG it happens so infrequently that it has only cost you +23 strokes over 24 rounds.

The killer by that latter metric is that +69 (2-1/2 strokes per round) from lateral misses. It is fairly costly per-shot and it happens a lot. So you could argue that the most bang for the buck in working on your swing is to not miss left-right so often (of course that's easier said than fixed I know).

Excellent point. One I'll use to hopefully shave strokes.

 

[McRock]

I understand amateurs are prone to say "no club will be enough for my duffed, fat shot", and that is certainly true. But duffing-fatting shots is a separate subject and the solution for that is related to learning proper technique, committing to practice same etc...

Or it could be mental. A golfer standing over the golf ball thinking, 'good thing I clubbed up in case I duff the ball,' has just increased his chances of duffing the ball. His subconscious expects it now. It's possible he strikes the ball well on the range every day, but then his brain gets in the way and causes that duff on the course.

Of course, we are all talking about a hypothetical amateur golfer as though they are all the same. One may have all the skills but no mental game, another may go out thinking he's the next Tiger, but just took up the game last week, and therefore, lacks the skills. When I think of the 'typical' amateur, I'm thinking the bogey golfer who can generally strike the ball, so he has sufficient skills, but quite frankly, lacks a mental game. Well, that and he lacks a short game. Short game and mental game go hand in hand. But I don't want to get too far off on a tangent.

~Rock

 

[DG_1234]

But looking at the results after fact the "obvious" answer is to see a shot 15 yards short of the green and say, "Wow if you'd just hit 5 instead of 7 there you'd be pin high".

Remember, taking more club has a way of naturally improving one's swing tempo and rhythm. Specifically, with plenty of club in hand the need/pressure/tension of having to make a perfect strike to reach the target is eliminated. Too often high scoring amateurs give up on learning a new habit and revert back to old ones. It takes time to become comfortable selecting more club., maybe several rounds of golf.

If I set the goal as "don't be short" then sure I'll overclub all day long. But it's be careful what you wish for.

Until one actually plays rounds of golf selecting more club than usual there is no good sense in theorizing on what the outcome may be. It's better to play rounds of golf and learn from the results.

Kind of like when someone is slicing the ball into the right woods from an open stance with a looping OOT swing path and wide open club face. For 100 years people have been saying "Just aim lefter"

Maybe for 100 years hackers have been saying "just aim more left" but most every highly skilled player knows faulty alignment exacerbates the slicing problem. Hackers will not improve listening to hackers. If a hacker wants to improve he should learn from a book on sound fundamental technique, such as Jack Nicklaus "Golf My Way", or from his local PGA teaching professional, or at least from someone he knows personally who consistently shoots 72 or better.

 

[JonMA1]

But duffing-fatting shots is a separate subject and the solution for that is related to learning proper technique, committing to practice same etc...

I don’t agree with your other points but I’m on board 100% with this.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

My backswing is always short and quick. If I take more club and try to make less than a full swing it most definitely does not improve my short and quick tempo!

I remember the first few years I played golf. Choked down an inch and played every club in the bag with the ball a couple inches inside my back foot. Just try to make a smooth, controlled 3/4 swing. Did wonders for making contact with ball first and I must say even when struggling to break 100 I did not duff or totally mishit many iron shots.

Then at a golf lesson the pro asked me did I ever actually go ahead and make a normal swing? I thought what I was doing was normal. Figured I was just weak and unskilled and it had to accept needing a 6-iron from 130 yards and never hitting a shot that got more than 20 feet high.

Golf's a lot more fun now actually stepping up and, you know, hitting the club that matches the distance of the shot. I'm not talking about rearing back and trying to slug every short iron shot 110% as hard as I can swing. But making a normal, full swing is the way to play golf. Not constantly trying to back off a longer club in the hope of never coming up 5 yards short of a green.

 

[Hamfist]

A Tour player (or any player accustomed to shooting par or better) , always proclaim that high scoring amateurs leave their approach shots short of the greens all day long. Consequently, "taking more club" is the obvious answer and has been for 100 years.
Remember, if the goal is to avoid leaving the ball short of the green, regardless of a player's swing faults, taking more club is a pragmatic solution. Otherwise, the balls will continue to be left short of the greens.
I understand amateurs are prone to say "no club will be enough for my duffed, fat shot", and that is certainly true. But duffing-fatting shots is a separate subject and the solution for that is related to learning proper technique, committing to practice same etc...

Can't argue with this.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

No joke? Having a better golf swing is the secret to hitting more greens and duffing fewer shots?

Well go figure, we learn something new every day.

I thought the discussion started out about relative effects of being short, long, left, right with approach shots.

 

[DG_1234]

If I take more club and try to make less than a full swing it most definitely does not improve my short and quick tempo!

I remember the first few years I played golf. Choked down an inch and played every club in the bag with the ball a couple inches inside my back foot. Just try to make a smooth, controlled 3/4 swing. Did wonders for making contact with ball first and I must say even when struggling to break 100 I did not duff or totally mishit many iron shots.

Where did you get the idea that taking more club calls for making "less than a full swing", or "choking down an inch", or "3/4 swing" ?
The change I am suggesting is limited to adopting the habit of taking more club , for several rounds, and learning what that change in habit does to shot results, scoring.