Club head speed

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

You've never hit a drive and said "I'm glad that didn't go 25 yards further"?

Of course, I’ve been happy if a drive has pulled up short of trouble, but I’ve never thought “I’m glad I’m a short hitter” or “if I was a longer hitter that’d be in trouble”. I simply wouldn’t think like that.

If you’re suggesting that gaining length means less accuracy, you could be right, but where does one draw the line with that ? You could hit a 7 iron off the tee all day and never be in trouble but you won’t score. Honestly if someone offers me 10mph more ball speed I wouldn’t for a second think I’d better not take it because my bad drives will be in bigger trouble. I’m thinking “great, I can now hit an iron in to the 11th” or “I can carry the corner on whatever hole” etc.
I’m 100% convinced over the course of a season you’d see a huge improvement.

thecomedian

GreeBo wrote: »

You've never hit a drive and said "I'm glad that didn't go 25 yards further"?

I have said that but at the same time I’ve often wished that a bad drive went 25 yards further.
If I had 25 extra yards on my drive, more often than not my second shot would be easier.

chalky_ie

GreeBo wrote: »

What are you saying he been categorically proven?

That better golfers hit the ball further or that hitting the ball further makes them better golfers?

Two very different things, so I'd be interested in your clarification and proof of same.

Ok, so it has been proven that there is a correlation between lower handicaps and hitting the ball further, but you are claiming that the 2 aren't directly linked in some way(no causation)? Do you genuinely believe that there is a golfer out there that wouldn't benefit from being able to hit every club in the bag 15% longer?

Jimbee

Trying to read through this thread and I get how people believe distance equals better scores. Simple test would be to play a round or two from the ladies tees or junior tees, how much does your handicap change.
Calculate your short game hcp from the scoring zone 130yds and in.

The original post talked about, how far you hit your 5 iron if your not happy get a 5H hybrid. The problem with long irons is unless you can hit them very high you have no stopping power
Personally I hit a long ball off 12 for years now down to 9 through short game I was stuck at 12 because I believed distance equaled strokes gained. In reality we all have bigger gains to make at 130 and in. Game golf or one of those stats gadgets will tell you where you cam make the biggest savings in strokes also.

MarcusP12

Jimbee wrote: »

Trying to read through this thread and I get how people believe distance equals better scores. Simple test would be to play a round or two from the ladies tees or junior tees, how much does your handicap change.
Calculate your short game hcp from the scoring zone 130yds and in.

The original post talked about, how far you hit your 5 iron if your not happy get a 5H hybrid. The problem with long irons is unless you can hit them very high you have no stopping power
Personally I hit a long ball off 12 for years now down to 9 through short game I was stuck at 12 because I believed distance equaled strokes gained. In reality we all have bigger gains to make at 130 and in. Game golf or one of those stats gadgets will tell you where you cam make the biggest savings in strokes also.

i'd agree with this.....it reminds me of something i read in the only Dr Bob Rotella book i've read....can't remember the exact detail but his argument was something along the lines of that if you somehow married a pro's long game with an amateur's game from 100 yds in (i.e. wedge in) and an amateur's long game with a pro's game from 100 yds in, the amateur long game with the pro game from 100 yds in would score better in his opinion....i'm sure modern stats will probably contradict that but it made sense to me based on my own weaknesses.....

fearruanua

ClutchIt wrote: »

Hi, I have ordered a simple mini launch monitor today for use with my golf net.

If I wanted to play off a handicap of about 10, what distance should I be hitting the 5 iron?

And then what 5 iron club head speed would be good to achieve this?

Thanks all.

Apologies if this has been asked before, but which monitor did you go for? Thinking of investing. Any feedback appreciated.

redzerdrog

MarcusP12 wrote: »

...i'm sure modern stats will probably contradict that but it made sense to me based on my own weaknesses.....

Correct this has been disproven.

Basically the shorter the shot the less of a gap there is between pro and hcap golfer. Ie a hcap golfer loses less shots compared to a pro

redzerdrog

I am not sure anyone here is arguing that practicing short game isnt important it is massively important. The shorter the shot the better chance a hcap golfer will have of being 'close' to a pro.

I haven't got the exact on this but can get then

A gap between a pros proximity from 40 yards and a hcap golfer will be x

This gap will widen at 80 yards

And the widen again at 120 yards.

This in turn debunks the theory that we should lay up to a full shot number as the closer we are to the hole the better the shot proximity for the next shot.

MarcusP12

redzerdrog wrote: »

I am not sure anyone here is arguing that practicing short game isnt important it is massively important. The shorter the shot the better chance a hcap golfer will have of being 'close' to a pro.

I haven't got the exact on this but can get then

A gap between a pros proximity from 40 yards and a hcap golfer will be x

This gap will widen at 80 yards

And the widen again at 120 yards.

This in turn debunks the theory that we should lay up to a full shot number as the closer we are to the hole the better the shot proximity for the next shot.

Agree with all of the above but just to be clear since i assume you are referencing my previous comments, this is just a tactic i use myself due to horrific weaknesses in my game. I wasn't putting it forward as best practice though i would recommend it for anyone who struggles with 3/4 shots in general like i do....for me, i could duff it, thin it, etc...no control...sure i can pull it off sometimes but i get very nervous and uncomfortable so if say i have a score card in my hand, i'll more than likely lay up to give a full lob wedge...something around 100.....Faldo did something very similar in the Ryder cup on the 18th in his match in '95 after driving into the rough, obviously for different reasons but it was something that stuck with me....for Faldo it was obviously to do with spin and pin position or something like that...for me its because i'll just simply screw it up....he won the hole and i think nicked a very important and unlikely half....for me the problem is compounded by the fact that i cant chip either so if i mess up the 3/4 shot, i've a poor chance of recovering from it.....i'd be such a better golfer obviously if i was able to work on that part of the game but when you're struggling to get out much more than 2/3 a month, its hard....

ClutchIt

fearruanua wrote: »

Apologies if this has been asked before, but which monitor did you go for? Thinking of investing. Any feedback appreciated.

Garmin G80.
Haven't tested it properly yet. Reviews on line are excellent though.

GreeBo

Jimbee wrote: »

Trying to read through this thread and I get how people believe distance equals better scores. Simple test would be to play a round or two from the ladies tees or junior tees, how much does your handicap change.
Calculate your short game hcp from the scoring zone 130yds and in.

I think a more accurate approach would be to take your real shots and walk them 15% further from the tee.
If you move to the ladies tee then you are getting all the benefits of guaranteed straight distance, which wouldnt be a fair reflection. (Basically your shots would be a dogleg!)

The original post talked about, how far you hit your 5 iron if your not happy get a 5H hybrid. The problem with long irons is unless you can hit them very high you have no stopping power
Personally I hit a long ball off 12 for years now down to 9 through short game I was stuck at 12 because I believed distance equaled strokes gained. In reality we all have bigger gains to make at 130 and in. Game golf or one of those stats gadgets will tell you where you cam make the biggest savings in strokes also.

100%

As I have said all along, you need enough distance.
So if you can't reach greens in regulation, then by definition you don't have *enough* distance.
But if you can reach comfortably, then in my opinion, accuracy will benefit your scores more than distance.

Sure you will be more accurate by default if hitting less club, but if you are hitting it 10% further you won't be 10% more accurate just by hitting less club.

Once you are reaching the GIR then on a par 4 you are going to hit 2 shots, no matter how far you are hitting it, so you are much better off hitting it closer with your approach rather than trying to hit it further.

GreeBo

MarcusP12 wrote: »

i'd agree with this.....it reminds me of something i read in the only Dr Bob Rotella book i've read....can't remember the exact detail but his argument was something along the lines of that if you somehow married a pro's long game with an amateur's game from 100 yds in (i.e. wedge in) and an amateur's long game with a pro's game from 100 yds in, the amateur long game with the pro game from 100 yds in would score better in his opinion....i'm sure modern stats will probably contradict that but it made sense to me based on my own weaknesses.....

Yeah, I think he actually did it with an anonymous tour pro?

redzerdrog

MarcusP12 wrote: »

Agree with all of the above but just to be clear since i assume you are referencing my previous comments, this is just a tactic i use myself due to horrific weaknesses in my game. I wasn't putting it forward as best practice though i would recommend it for anyone who struggles with 3/4 shots in general like i do....for me, i could duff it, thin it, etc...no control...sure i can pull it off sometimes but i get very nervous and uncomfortable so if say i have a score card in my hand, i'll more than likely lay up to give a full lob wedge...something around 100.....Faldo did something very similar in the Ryder cup on the 18th in his match in '95 after driving into the rough, obviously for different reasons but it was something that stuck with me....for Faldo it was obviously to do with spin and pin position or something like that...for me its because i'll just simply screw it up....he won the hole and i think nicked a very important and unlikely half....for me the problem is compounded by the fact that i cant chip either so if i mess up the 3/4 shot, i've a poor chance of recovering from it.....i'd be such a better golfer obviously if i was able to work on that part of the game but when you're struggling to get out much more than 2/3 a month, its hard....

Over time you will be losing strokes by taking this approach. You have said that you are also a poor chipper but you will miss the green about 60% of the time from 120 yards which will put pressure on your chipping.

I think sometimes it can come down to managing expectations. From 80yards we can be disappointed if we dont hit the green and sometimes even dont stick it we can be disappointed. Or perception of what is a good shot from 120 compared to 80 can differ.

I also struggle with that 3/4 shot so now the dread over them but duffing shots isnt exclusively from those shots and can happen on any for me

MarcusP12

redzerdrog wrote: »

Over time you will be losing strokes by taking this approach. You have said that you are also a poor chipper but you will miss the green about 60% of the time from 120 yards which will put pressure on your chipping.

I think sometimes it can come down to managing expectations. From 80yards we can be disappointed if we dont hit the green and sometimes even dont stick it we can be disappointed. Or perception of what is a good shot from 120 compared to 80 can differ.

I also struggle with that 3/4 shot so now the dread over them but duffing shots isnt exclusively from those shots and can happen on any for me

not disagreeing with your comments for the general sense but i know my game better than anyone and as a stop gap to preserve a score i'm definitely better off from 120 yds than 80 (i'd go with 100 as my lay up distance generally).......i'm actually a very good full shot iron player from say 160/150 in (or at least relative to what my average round at the moment would suggest) because i'm not hitting much more than 8/9 from 160 depending on conditions (which i know suggest the distance is king theory)......always have been.....i don't have stats to back it up but i would say that i'd be closer to 80% GIR from 120 than the 60% you're suggesting.....you can believe that or not if you like but that's my sense based on where i think my game is at.....for me and the 3/4 shot if it was just a case of "missing the green", e.g. directional with good distance control or mis- judging by 10 yds meaning slightly short or long then, maybe i would take a chance with it as i know you have to practice it to improve it but my fails are awful from that range....mostly duff or thins so i end up with a similar shot with scar tissue to deal with....when it goes wrong, i can turn a likely par into a double and that has the potential then to affect the next couple of holes unless i can bounce back straight away....

Russman

MarcusP12 wrote: »

i'd agree with this.....it reminds me of something i read in the only Dr Bob Rotella book i've read....can't remember the exact detail but his argument was something along the lines of that if you somehow married a pro's long game with an amateur's game from 100 yds in (i.e. wedge in) and an amateur's long game with a pro's game from 100 yds in, the amateur long game with the pro game from 100 yds in would score better in his opinion....i'm sure modern stats will probably contradict that but it made sense to me based on my own weaknesses.....

IMHO Rotella's most famous book is probably the best read and advice anyone can get to improve at golf. Priceless. His others are very good too.
Despite me suggesting increasing distance will improve the player, there's no way I'd diminish the short game. You still need to get it in the hole.

I keep all my basic stats and in, say, a decade or a little more, my stroke average has gone up by around 7 shots per round. Yet my fairways hit, number of putts etc have all remained much the same. The only one that changed as massively is my greens hit, I'm hitting about 5 fewer greens per round these days. Its up to me to figure out if this is because I've lost yardage and I'm hitting too long a club into the greens, my iron play is sh1t, or because my misses with the driver are bigger now and I'm chipping out sideways more often.

I still wouldn't say no to 20 more yards though if it ups my GIR !

MarcusP12

Russman wrote: »

IMHO Rotella's most famous book is probably the best read and advice anyone can get to improve at golf. Priceless. His others are very good too.
Despite me suggesting increasing distance will improve the player, there's no way I'd diminish the short game. You still need to get it in the hole.

I keep all my basic stats and in, say, a decade or a little more, my stroke average has gone up by around 7 shots per round. Yet my fairways hit, number of putts etc have all remained much the same. The only one that changed as massively is my greens hit, I'm hitting about 5 fewer greens per round these days. Its up to me to figure out if this is because I've lost yardage and I'm hitting too long a club into the greens, my iron play is sh1t, or because my misses with the driver are bigger now and I'm chipping out sideways more often.

I still wouldn't say no to 20 more yards though if it ups my GIR !

Yeah i found it fascinating the one i read (golf is not a game of perfect)....i have another on too which i'll read at some stage....strangely, a lot of them on amazon don't deliver here.....

You sound like me too on the personal stats side of things....i'm interested in that side of the game and also the mental side....for me, if had to choose an area to improve it would also be the short game over the long game...sure, i'd like more distance but it would be wasted on me if i don't sort my short game out as when i am playing well, i do hit a lot of fairways and green, its when things arent going well and i need to rely on a short game, things unravel very easily...duff/thinned chips and 3 putts are the biggest offenders when i'm off my game....

fearruanua

ClutchIt wrote: »

Garmin G80.
Haven't tested it properly yet. Reviews on line are excellent though.

The very one I was looking at. Interested to see how you get on with it?

rickis tache

Got one last week.
It's good fun using the games mode and helpful in practice modes but since I can only estimate if it's a fade/slice or a pull by the strike it's got it's limits.
Look for to trying it out on a course but the met in the garden will do for now

mk7775

Not sure if this has been shared yet:

https://datagolf.com/importance-of-driving-distance/

ClutchIt

rickis tache wrote: »

Got one last week.
It's good fun using the games mode and helpful in practice modes but since I can only estimate if it's a fade/slice or a pull by the strike it's got it's limits.
Look for to trying it out on a course but the met in the garden will do for now

I'm very concerned with the values I'm getting on it. I have used 4i, 3 wood and PW. Carry distance are all considerably lower than what they should be.
Are yours matching up ok?
Like, I have flushed a few 3 woods, and they coming up a good 50yrds short of expected...

redzerdrog

I briefly got to use one before lockdown but wanted to look into the numbers more but forgot.

Iv attached the images I think. My initial thoughts was that the CHS should have given better carry numbers but I was putting it down to strike. I haven't actually looked into how the device works though

Also last time I used a trackman was 4 or 5 years ago and my chs was 106mph

rickis tache

ClutchIt wrote: »

I'm very concerned with the values I'm getting on it. I have used 4i, 3 wood and PW. Carry distance are all considerably lower than what they should be.
Are yours matching up ok?
Like, I have flushed a few 3 woods, and they coming up a good 50yrds short of expected...

I really think they are close to being right for me. I used to over estimate my yardage and this has me thinking I should club up 1 but won't know until I take it on course and try it out.

GreeBo

ClutchIt wrote: »

I'm very concerned with the values I'm getting on it. I have used 4i, 3 wood and PW. Carry distance are all considerably lower than what they should be.
Are yours matching up ok?
Like, I have flushed a few 3 woods, and they coming up a good 50yrds short of expected...

What are you expected numbers based on?
On course numbers or some other measuring device?

benny79

I have watched loads of videos on launch monitors and the G80 can be a good bit off on some strikes. The nearest to trackman was the PRGR which is actually the cheapest.

Then you are up into skytracks and Mevo+ for €2000ish

chalky_ie

All of the cheaper monitors seems to be pretty woeful for anything longer than an iron, and there also seems to be very strict rules regarding positioning for them to be as accurate as possible also.

redzerdrog

benny79 wrote: »

I have watched loads of videos on launch monitors and the G80 can be a good bit off on some strikes. The nearest to trackman was the PRGR which is actually the cheapest.

Then you are up into skytracks and Mevo+ for €2000ish

Iv read that the PRGR estimates a swing 4mph more than trackman/foresight. Although the PRGR is meant to be the most consistent and give the most accurate feedback regarding ball speed and distances it would annoy me having to calculate 4mph off every time

Russman

redzerdrog wrote: »

Iv read that the PRGR estimates a swing 4mph more than trackman/foresight. Although the PRGR is meant to be the most consistent and give the most accurate feedback regarding ball speed and distances it would annoy me having to calculate 4mph off every time

FWIW I have the PRGR one and it seems to be fairly close to what I know my numbers have usually/historically been on Trackman. Admittedly its 2018 since I've been on a Trackman and it was only last summer I bought the PRGR.

I'm taking the view that, a bit like a weighing scales, it doesn't matter if its off as long as I keep using the same one !:)

Edit: Now that I think about it, ballspeed is fairly close to what the system in Spawell driving range was giving me too (can't remember the name, Flightscope, Shotscope, something like that)

DuckSlice

redzerdrog wrote: »

Iv read that the PRGR estimates a swing 4mph more than trackman/foresight. Although the PRGR is meant to be the most consistent and give the most accurate feedback regarding ball speed and distances it would annoy me having to calculate 4mph off every time

I have a PRGR. I haven't been able to use it really except for a quick 20 minute range session. Last time i was on Trackman i was 99-101 with the driver. PRGR was around the same maybe 100-102. The carry numbers were around about right compared to Trackman also.

As long as you are using the same monitor all the time then you should be able to track improvements. I only got the PRGR for CHS and ball speed, don't pay much heed to the distance as its only estimating that based on a data they have collected.

redzerdrog

Yeh agree with both at least it is consistent feedback

GreeBo

redzerdrog wrote: »

Yeh agree with both at least it is consistent feedback

Also, if the distances are accurate then I guess the clubhead speed doesnt really matter?