DECADE Strategy

Strategy
#152

Caught something in the “Chasing Improvement” thread, that I think is a nifty way to think about how we should try to view the improvement process. Though that whole thread is packed with neat tips and suggestions.
This part from @BIF’s post I cited, really caught my eye:

Summary:
Understand your game’s strength and weaknesses - learn from your misses - focus on a couple areas of improvement (don’t try to boil the ocean - just do 1-2 things better) - work on adding additional shots to your repertoire (especially around the green) and the shots will start to come off. Don’t get dejected if you don’t see results instantly, build the process that works for you - I didn’t need to track every single shot/stat as I had a good understanding of my game; if you don’t, then definitely track stats and let that dictate where you focus your attention.

3 Likes
#153

Let’s look at it (Decade) from a 20 hdcp. perspective. A typical round of what I call shots “LOST”, not strokes gained.

4-poor drives

6-poor approach

6-chips/pitches/sand

4-putts
Decade works, but it can’t account for MY flubs. ie. If I fat or thin an approach shot, missing my “normal dispersion” by 30, 40, 50 or more yards, Decade can’t help (imho). But when I hit them Midas touch shots & rounds where (almost) everything is clicking it helps quite a bit.
1 example from a recent round. 165 yds, uphill 30’, up slope lie, pin R center. I figured (if I ‘dinged’ it) that 6 iron, aimed left center, would leave me on the green. It did, 40’ short. The wind, which was off my 8:00 swilrled & changed to 2:00 direction mid-swing.
Before decade I wouldn’t have really known the algorithm for that shot. Can I use it to it’s fullest capabilities as a 20 hdcp., who ballooned to 24 this season? No way!

3 Likes
#154

Still, not bad. Even with the wind changing 180 degrees on you. Considering that the PGA Tour average approach proximity from 150 to 175 in the fairway, last year was 27’ 8". It’s a reasonable 2-putt either way.

Nice job.

2 Likes
#155

May i ask what your low score for par 72 course is? I realize thats a left field question
Thanks!

#156

Best I ever shot was 85. 3 times in 2019, on 3 different courses. I was practicing 1-2 times a week. And prior to starting that year, winter of '18-'19, I had read AND studied @Adamyounggolf The Practice Manual.

2 Likes
#157

May I ask what you think are barriers to duplicating that success?

#158

Inability to control ground strike and face control.
Not wanting to spend 2 1/2- 3 hours a week at range.
Concentration and focus on every shot.

3 Likes
#159

For people who would be thrilled to get to 10 handicap, is there a role for non driver even though the unobstructed distance is 65 yards and potentially giving up distance? Especially on long par 4s and par 5s that are not reachable?
Is there a role for a layup on long par 3s to try and avoid trouble? Giving up 0.3 strokes or whatever is not nearly as bad as being in the trees or bunker or hazard.

Thanks for thoughts

#160

I’m not really understanding the question(s), @Qschool. The classic justification for not using driver off the tee was that you’d be much more accurate with a shorter club, and be in a better scoring position despite giving up 10-40 yards of distance. Jon had a blog post where, for him, that wasn’t the case, and indeed the large stat accumulator companies like GameGolf and Shot Scope seem to back that up. If you are more accurate with, e.g., a 3W vs Driver, it’s not by much, and the 2-3 club longer approach shot wipes that negligible accuracy gain out.

To your other point, if you’re finding yourself often thinking about laying up on a long par-3, or being unable to get home on long par-4s, you might be playing from the wrong tees. I mean, weather can change things—LOL 16th at Cypress Point, starting into 40 MPH of wind—but if you’re constantly finding yourself in these situations, maybe it’s the tees? Personally, it sucks when seemingly every approach is needing a 5W or 3I to get home. Once in awhile, OK, but when the only time you’re grabbing a PW is when you’ve missed the green? Again?? Ugh.

Sure, there are times I think laying up on a par-3 is smart. Never played Cypress’s 16th (or any of the others, LOL) but that’s a situation where sure, bail out left. 237 into that kind of wind…hahahaha. I would have ‘layed up’ at Pebble 17th if the wind was bigger. Aimed for the very front of the long, figure-8-ish looking green, or the mongo bunker front left. And it was ‘only’ 180 ish to the back from where I was hitting.

#161

I understand Jon had a blog post and have read it.
I’m posing the question whether that is as accurate for higher handicaps as lower. You kindly answered many questions and I appreciate.

There is no way higher handicaps give up distance 100% of time with driver versus 3 wood as Scott says. The swings are not optimized. More mishits in my experience with driver than 3 wood. Sure, learn to hit driver might be the right solution, but until that happens there may be times where the skill level dictates club selection more than the course? It’s a question, not a statement of fact.

I assume that i am not explaining myself well regarding par 3s. There are for sure times where i have the length to reach a par 3. However if it hooks or slices it winds up in an extremely penal area. Hitting a shorter club and committing to be short of the green with uphill chip will frequently leave a better second shot than a moderately well hit longer club. I mean especially on some of the oblong greens playing to back of green will leave a 40-50 foot putt sometimes when the pin is in front. I think some of my question is trying to interpret partial strokes in the context of a score for each hole/round. Probably each player has some clubs that eventually they are significantly less skillful with than others.

I understand that Scott believes that 3wood dispersion and driver dispersion are mostly same, but I’m not sure that holds true for higher handicaps. I think it’s possible left to right dispersion might be similar, but I’m not even sure if that requires throwing out 10 percent of shots. If I’ve misunderstood something, please clarify. It’s not that i doubt the relative value of distance, it’s that i am not sure that driver reliably gets a better situation than 3 wood at the 15 handicap level.

If players are like me, throwing out 10 percent of shots on range will leave a way different dispersion than throwing out 10 percent of shots on course. 10 percent of shots on course might still leave roughly the same dispersion shape. I’m just typing in random thoughts at this point. I’m still fascinated by the data he has collected. I wish there was some way of prospectively validating it, but i think some parts of the golf swing are so mental it’s hard to validate prospectively. :slight_smile:

For me the tees are dictated by men’s league and even using the standard formulas for estimating distance, most would say i can play blue tees if i choose to. I won’t be eligible by age criteria to move up for more than 15 years.

As always thank you for taking the time to consider my question.

2 Likes
#162

The only way to evaluate this properly is to get data for yourself. Like all statistically based methods of evaluation, conclusions are great for “normal” golfer, but can be poor for some individuals. So keep some kinds of records for your own swing on real golf courses. There are a number of systems available for getting this data, I can’t recommend any specific product, but you’ll make better decisions for yourself if you can base them on your own specific strengths and weaknesses.

4 Likes
#163

You’re describing a much more formal system for where to play, than I’m used to. That doesn’t sound like much fun, frankly.

I agree with some of your questions and statements on the 3 wood vs driver. Near as I can tell, the big gap in distance between 3W and 1W doesn’t happen unless the swing speeds are higher than those of most high handicappers. Which is why I included a lower bound of 10 yards in my original post. Moreover, many high handicappers who haven’t been fitted for a driver, are playing drivers with too low a loft, and perhaps also, too stiff a shaft. Probably too long as well, if people like Tom Wishon are right, and they probably are. The optimal driving charts like a lot of loft and spin, if CHS is low. Hard to get the required loft on a 10.5 driver vs 15-ish degree 3W.

Given those constraints, I definitely can see situations where most 3W shots by Golfer X, are indeed going further than most 1W shots by that golfer. For awhile, I was getting perplexed by my 3W getting higher CHS than my driver. I’ve been fitted for neither. The 3W has an R-shaft, the 1W a “bumblebee” UST Proforce in S, that used to feel like swinging a 2x4. I’ve since learned how to effectively use the 1W, with CHS and ball speed getting more where it should be—but a driver fitting is still on my wishlist.

It’s not just Broadie/Fawcett though. The Arccos people are showing a similar paradigm throughout all handicaps, AIUI.

2 Likes
#164

Could you point me to the arccos data please.
Thanks!

#165

Is a post from them building on the “you don’t hit it as far as you think” paradigm, though it doesn’t show 3W distances or accuracy. The more I’m looking at it, i don’t think Arccos is saying that about users 3W vs 1W.

You want something really weird about Arccos users and their 3Ws? Take a look at this article: https://www.golfmonthly.com/gear/gear-blog/3-iron-vs-3-hybrid-what-the-stats-say-is-best-for-you-244995

Yeah, the title doesn’t say 3 wood, but when you read it, this blurb jumps out:

Handicaps of 5 and under typically pull their 3 iron or 3 hybrid facing shots of 220-230 yards but actually average 197-210 yards with their 3-wood. With a 3-wood, they could decrease the disparity between how far they think they hit the ball, and how far they actually hit it, by 10 to 15 yards.

Interestingly, for higher handicap Arccos players in the 20 to 25 range, the extra distance provided by the 3-wood’s loft, lie and shaft length is negligible (five to seven yards) over the 3-iron and 3-hybrid and with the 3-hybrid being a much easier club to get airborne off the fairway, and it’s dispersion being lower, it’s the smarter play for bogey golfers.

Edit: I, for one, am perplexed. I’m not that good. I’ll be the first to tell you. And likely, course distance /= range distance. Even off grass. But I would consider, personally for me, a 3W that only traveled a total of 220-230, as fairly mishit by me. Average carry on my monitor is 235, and the thing rolls afterwards, too. Sometimes further roll than my driver, if I catch a high launch on the top of the driver face.

Really, 220-230, I’m busting out the 5W. It’ll roll to that. I seent it

2 Likes
#166

I think when distances are shorter on course, it could be wind, lie, rough limiting rollout, user error. Also could be coming out of rough. Average may be affected by duffs as well. Also how did they manage slices that went into water or ob?

I think most people using monitors dont actually use average distance, they use 3/4 of best shots to determine number.

I think historically most people have trouble gapping longer clubs. Not so surprising but in my mind supportive of hypothesis that driver benefit may accrue more powerfully to lower handicaps. Not sure where breakeven point is though.

I dont know whether the data is good data or bad data. Either way good for analytical brains to converse about. :rofl:

1 Like
#167

The aggregated data is kinda interesting but at the end of the day you still have to chart out your distributions!

2 Likes
#168

Yes! In this, as in most things, you have to be very careful of just HOW the “average” … or sometimes “mean” … is being quoted/used/referring to…

There’s a funny story:
Mark Cuban (used to be Bill Gates but I changed it up) walks into a crowded bar - suddenly … on average … everyone is a millionaire! :rofl:

1 Like
#169

Thanks for the discount code. Love the DECADE strategy

2 Likes
#170

Does everyone use Google Earth when mapping courses pertaining to DECADE strategy?

I’ve tried to use it a couple times but haven’t found the drawing/mapping features very easy to utilize.

1 Like
#171

Try provisualizer.com

Nowhere near every course, but some really snazzy tools for the ones they do have.

Alternately, 18birdies or bluegolf or Tag Heuer’s golf app: all will let you virtually play a lot more courses via a Google Earth-esque interface.

But provisualizer is really cool.

1 Like