Naive thoughts about golf

General Discussion
#1

What are some things that you used to believe that were totally wrong?

When I was about 8 or 9 a friends’ dad hit the ball a long way (he was scratch so we just thought he was the best). When we watched him hit drivers, the ball just went up up up and kept rising. We thought that’s what a really long shot looked like. Now I know that he had a s*** ton of spin on his ball and was likely losing a bunch of distance because of it. This was back in late 90s.

Also when I was probably 6 and heard of people hitting it 300 yards, I looked down the street and couldn’t believe hitting a ball 300 houses would be possible :man_shrugging:

2 Likes
#2

I once believed that since professional golfers made it look easy, that it IS easy. Talk about naive!

2 Likes
#3

I used to think professional golfers never miss a shot because they rarely show missed shots on tv.

1 Like
#4

Never had this opinion myself, both those who think golf isn’t (and can’t be) a sport.

#5

Had no clue re actual conversion % for pro golfers from outside of 8 ft

#6

That to hit a fade you needed an open clubface. I unsuccessfully tried to play a fade for over a decade as a kid with that poor information :rofl: - it was just a big block that sometimes went straight.

1 Like
#7

That anything in golf is done exactly the way you thought it was supposed to be done. I realized anything you think you are supposed to do, just do the opposite. Golf is a game of opposites.

#8

I thought golf was only for rich, old, white guys with too much money and that all golf courses would be super pretentious.

2 Likes
#9

That high handicappers play slow and low handicappers play fast.

5 Likes
#10

I believe that golfers hit the ball as far as they say.

3 Likes
#11

That’s a good one. It’s been humbling for me to have my Shot Scope stats staring me in the face. :grinning:

4 Likes
#12

…well I’ve got a great deal on this bridge in Brooklyn if you’re interested.

1 Like
#13

I’m a little confused. From what you’re describing, that ‘sounds like’ a high launch hit with not much backspin. Which is what we often want, I thought.

He had a ‘rainbow-like flight’, right? Not a low-to-medium height ball that’s held up by backspin-induced lift? Which is what I thought we often don’t want.

#14

Not so much my naivete but more others when I have conversations with younger guys about Hogan, Snead, Jack, King, etc and they argue with me that those players were great in their day, but would never dominate like they did in today’s game…hmmm…my answer is always you’re right, Jack woulda won 30 majors…lol. imagine what Hogan would have done with today’s balls and shafts! Not gonna say clubheads because he always hit dead center. He might have won more with today’s putter technology. Ever try and putt with a bullseye?..

#15

I think every one of the old-time greats would be very successful playing today, they’d all take advantage of the equipment improvements, the increased understanding of scoring, the increased understanding of fitness, etc. They succeeded then because of innate ability combined with great work ethic, and those same qualities are valuable today. However, I believe there is much greater depth of talent in today’s fields, so I don’t think they’d exceed what the accomplished in their days. Indeed, I’d be really surprised if they won as many events or as many majors.

2 Likes
#16

No - it was low to medium launch the the rose up and up a bit more and then seemed to drop more straight down

#17

See I disagree, that the fields are deeper, Maybe more athletic types, but not deeper. Brooks has it right. Go to major, look at the field of 175 and basically go like this…math. he automatically eliminates 150 players. Then he looks at the next 25 and sees how their game is going and he eliminates half of those. Not so deep! Jack won 18, that’s not the scary part. I think he finished second in 20. I mean if Phil had any kind of mental capacity, and I love the guy, he would have won 6 more majors and 40 more tournaments. But he’s fun to watch. People forget WAR eliminated 10-20 wins from the old timers and don’t sell that not deep field of middlecoff, demerat, Trevino, Floyd, name em…short. The fields were just as deep. Over the last bit of majors, there’s a ton of guys, top tier players that are like -18 to -24 overall. Brooks is -80. He figured that part of it out and circles like a shark. I just think there’s too much extracurricular stuff going on in the game today that really precludes greatness. So we end up with parity. Alot of the thinking has been taken out of the game because of the ball, Bash and Gouge. I’d still take Hogan at his best thinking his way through a course than any of these guys today except Eldrick. He was and is an evil genius

#18

Closer to the hole is always better than hanging back. As someone who struggles from 20-50 yards, I’m very comfortable hanging back to that 75-100 range to hit a better shot.
And it took me a long time to get that through my big dumb head.

1 Like
#19

I’m not sure which one you are doing now!

I’m struggling with this concept, personally… especially as I’ve gotten less aggressive on par fives… leave myself 100 yards? 50 yards? I’m never sure.

#20

If I have to lay up or choose between going at a short par 4 or hanging back, I generally try to shoot for that 75-100 range because I’m significantly better from that range than I am from even 20ish yards out to around the 50-60 range.

1 Like