Sky Caddie Exposes The Phony Long

[Golfcat]

Why is it...whenever someone starts a thread about liking thier Skycaddie, some clown (or two) have to chime in on why the laser is better.

 

OK...I get it, you like your laser...it's accurate to a yard...great, fine, OK

 

Guess what...I like my Skycaddie...Is it perfect, no...is it an incredibly useful tool, yes.

 

Please save the laser praise/koolaid for the "What is better..." threads.

 

FWIW

Patrick

[dcmidnight]

Why is it...whenever someone starts a thread about liking thier Skycaddie, some clown (or two) have to chime in on why the laser is better.

 

OK...I get it, you like your laser...it's accurate to a yard...great, fine, OK

 

Guess what...I like my Skycaddie...Is it perfect, no...is it an incredibly useful tool, yes.

 

Please save the laser praise/koolaid for the "What is better..." threads.

 

FWIW

Patrick

+1, exactly. I have both, but use the SC almost exclusively on the course and especially if I am traveling and playing 4 or 5 different courses in a week. There are some things the rangefinder just cant do. Blind tee shots, doglegs etc the rangefinder is completely useless. I have the "old" SG2 but find that sizewise its great and works for me for what I need.

[SwingMan]

 

But I digress. I've seen the SkyCaddie, and it's easy enough to use, but I still can't figure out why someone would prefer it over a laser rangefinder like the Bushnell 1500. The newer generation of rangefinders require less precision than those of a few years ago, and unless your hands really shake it's awfully easy to get an exact measurement. I have a friend with the SkyCaddie and we've found it to be very accurate testing it against the 1500, so I can't speak for the earlier posts that spoke to the potential degree of error. Still, when you're playing into an uphill hole location on a green 42 yards long, what good does knowing the distance to front, middle, and back do? The only advantage the SkyCaddie has is that it's quicker - you can just look at it instead of having to shoot the target - but what good is that if it doesn't supply exact yardage to the hole?

 

I do agree that the Caddie can bust your ego.

 

Second, this is a thread about how the Caddie can bust your ego.

 

This is where I will threadjack for a moment. Thanks. I have a Caddie and a Laser with Pinseeking Tech and the Caddie is easier to use. Third, your question about the green being 42 yards long takes an extreme example and is answerable. First, know where the flag is - courses supply pin positions - second, you can easily estimate and come close to the flag position with a Caddie. My game is such that my irons/wedges are not laser-like and if they have a +/- factor of 5 yards, I'd be happy. Most of the time, I like front and back green positions and can estimate the flag fairly closely. Even with an allowed laser, you need to account for the uphill flag and the lie by your lonesome unless you have the slope edition.

 

I can also point out normal examples of where a laser is completely useless, but we all know those examples.

 

The Caddie claims with the new GPS systems to have an error factor of +/- 3 yards. I can live with that. In the real world, the Caddie has been spot on with lasered sprinkler heads in my use of it for 2 years. But I like both technologies.

 

Back to the thread -- the Caddie is fun to use and the yardage marker can help you on all of your clubs.

[golfebj]

I'm taking my 250-260 drives and running home! Hahaha!

 

I have a buddy with one of those and quite a few of our playing partners have been filled up eating humble pie by the turn.

[shift627]

In all fairness the average golfer does hit the ball a total of 300 yards

 

200 yards straight + 100 yards slicing = 300 'total' yards

 

:tongue:

 

Plus what is the huge obseesion with driver distance anyways??? Unless you have long carriess or deep, tough fairway bunkers most people should focus on the straight part??

The average golfer should really learn how far to carry a wedge or a pitch/chip shot.

 

I absolutly loving watching people at our club out drive then take 5 shots around the green.

 

Why does it take people 2 shots for the ball to travel 400 yards near the green but 5 to travel 50 feet to the cup???

[airball7]

Why is it...whenever someone starts a thread about liking thier Skycaddie, some clown (or two) have to chime in on why the laser is better.

 

OK...I get it, you like your laser...it's accurate to a yard...great, fine, OK

 

Guess what...I like my Skycaddie...Is it perfect, no...is it an incredibly useful tool, yes.

 

Please save the laser praise/koolaid for the "What is better..." threads.

 

FWIW

Patrick

 

I did not write that the laser is better; I wrote that I couldn't figure out why one would want the SkyCaddie over the laser. Some of the posts explaining the preference were illuminating; I hadn't considered blind shots and doglegs, where the SkyCaddie is obviously superior. That's why I like this site; you can find good answers to your questions.

 

Was hitting balls the other day at the range next to two morons who were pounding one 320 yard drive after another as far as they were concerned. I worked my way up through the set all the way to driver, flying most of the well-struck ones about 15-20 feet into the back screen, which I had measured at 267 yards using my cyanide-laced flavored beverage rangefinder (probably had a 5-10 MPH tailwind). Since these were obviously flying the idiots by 30-40 yards, as their "320 yarders" were rolling dead about 30 yards short of the fence, one of them asked me how far I hit the ball, saying I must hit it 350 (of course I must, lest their bombs be exposed for what they actually were). I was only too happy to tell them the precise yardages, and was met with the usual obstinance and denial - that the rangefinder was incorrect or broken, etc. It was a pleasure watching them deflate as I explained that I know all my yardages with all of my clubs, that I've used the laser in state tournaments, and that the measurement to the fence was "dead on balls accurate". Next thing I knew they were having a contest to see who could get their 7-iron closer to the 150 flag.

 

I'm not saying that there aren't guys out there hitting it 320 - our club champion is 25 years old, 6'4" and lanky, has about as wide an arc as I've ever seen, and easily outdoes my best with his by 30+ yards (soooo demoralizing) - but you could make a lot of money with either a SkyCaddie or a rangefinder betting people they can't hit it 270. The original poster couldn't be more correct; these measuring devices, like the doctor's office scale, reveal the ugly truth.

 

Now if you'll excuse me I've got a plane to catch to Jonestown.

[LyleG]

Try lasering a creek in a bit of a valley and getting a good carry yardage. Or pound one way left onto the next farrway and them laser me a distance, through the trees, to the green.

 

I had a laser finder and now have a ski caddie. You can keep you laser.

[klpra]

*300 YARD drives are not as common as everyone thinks.* :tongue:

 

Yep...and thats why you have to take what all the 300 yard drivers say on this site as well as some other sites with a grain of salt! :D

[golfebj]

My personal best ever...290. On the 18th hole at a scramble when I finally developed a rhythm and connected on one and even the group playing behind us was like, "that was roasted!" I will cherish that day for years to come.

 

Didn't even feel like I was swinging. Ahh to reminisce.

[golfslave]

I have a couple of questions...

 

1) When people comapare their average to a "pro", are the two calculated the same way? When I watch a match on TV, the yardages they quote are basically (Yds to flag at tee position - Yds from flag at 2nd shot). If guys use the same method (and most do using the course markings) wouldn't that be a valid comparison?

 

2) Related to above, would the same "penalty" apply to the pros if they used the device? I've seen pros play on courses I've played, and they are not considerably longer than I am, although they look like they are swinging at 70% while I almost fall down on my drives...I think that is probably the biggest difference between us & Them IMO. That, and they hit it pretty straight! On the other hand, they play in all weather conditions, which can adversely affect their averages, where we mere mortals usually only go out on nice, sunny days. I played in the rain once, and let me tell you, my average for that day was 40 yds less. Same thing in the wind...!!

 

3) My course is VERY well marked and the markers are accurate according to skycaddie (played with people who use them). If I am on a straight, level, hole that measures 400 yds, and I am sitting next to a sprinkler marked 80...I hit it 320. right? According to my experiences, that has been correct via Skycaddie. As a matter of fact on a day where my friend let me carry his skycaddie, my driver average was 3yds longer than my calculated average. Granted, I did not include any dogleg holes, but I don't include them in my calculated average either because I don't hit a driver on them.

 

4) Would you all agree that sometimes guys forget to subtract the yardage where the tee markers on from the maximum yardage posted, which is usually the yardage on the card? I think that is where most of the discrepancy comes in. At my course this can be as many as 20 yds. I catch my friends doing this ALL THE TIME...the card says 410, they end up at a 110 marker and say they got "3bills". Then I say, yeah, but the tee line was 15 yds from the back of the box...

 

5) Using Golfwits, it became obvious to me that my course is measured generally down the middle of the fairway, using the "optimal" line to the hole. On some holes, if measured in a straight line, the hole becomes 50yds shorter. By cutting doglegs, do you think that some folks' stated averages could go up quite a bit? I think that is the case, but it's also the case for pros assuming they measure the same way. I don't think pros use GPS to measure their shots for published yds stats, or do they??

 

6) I don't think I'd rely on my 260-270 average playing in another part of the country, either. (I live in the desert) If I played on the East Coast or in a windy/wet climate, I'd bet I'd be 30yds shorter due to a number of factors. The opposite would be true too I guess.?

 

When I play with others, I generally outdrive them by 30-40 yds, so I'd say a fair average for a recreational player is probably close to 240-250, but they would probably say 270-280...

[Young04]

I already know I don't hit it very far. But I played with a couple of guys a while back who were loud-talking at the first tee about hitting 300y drives all the time. They were making rude put-downs of tour pros who drive "only" 285, using a perjorative that is a common name for a cat.

 

They tee'd off and high-fived each other, yelling "Yeah baby! 295 on that one!" and things like that.

 

Their drives were carrying at most 235-240. They were so delusional that they were complaining that the 150y marker to the green was misplaced. On every hole.

 

yeah, i've seen people like that. i would just say something like, fine, you don't think it's 150? what do you think it is? 120? go ahead and hit your PW then.

 

watch them leave it 20 yards short.

[Grum]

I played in the rain once, and let me tell you, my average for that day was -40 yds.

You hit the ball 40 yards backwards? I think you're making the game a little too hard for yourself :P

[golfslave]

I played in the rain once, and let me tell you, my average for that day was -40 yds.

You hit the ball 40 yards backwards? I think you're making the game a little too hard for yourself :P

 

hee hee that was funny! Actually that would be tougher than hitting it 300 straight!! I'll edit my post JIC...

[jcjr34]

Haha, I know someone that actually got minus yardage on his tee shot once. His drive hit a tree dead on and it shot directly back onto the cart path and rolled and bounced to 20 yards behind the tee box! ;)

[Jaliveto]

Could be wrong , but I think I'm pretty certain on this.

 

Only 2 holes are measured per round for driving distance for the pros on tour. Look at the stats and you will see that , for example, early in the season when the have played , say 12 rounds only, there will be only 24 drives measured. Check out driving distance on golf.com or another other cite that tracks it. I beleive some even say it at the bottom of the driving distance stats.

 

In addition, I have heard this come up before and I think they also only measure two holes(1 on each 9) that do not have a dramatic elevation change or wide issue. Further, they are usually driver friendly holes.

 

So, if you took just 2 holes on your local course, that set up nicely for the driver, your average would likely be higher than if you measured all holes. But, as with everybody on this post, it would likely be lower than you thought.

 

Having said all that, I take nothing away from what the pros do. They are long and straight.

[herkyjerk]

The earlier post was spot on. I won't quote it because it was long. The player wrote how pro averages count EVERY drive in all conditions. If you ask most hacks what they average, they will tell you the longest one they hit all weekend. It's so true. Yeah I average 260. NOT You hit one drive 260 but your average was more like 220. What do I REALLY average? An awesome point that I am taking to Williamsburg National on Friday. I am going to find my true average for 14 tee shots (I bet it will be painful to look at, but I will not lie or strech it). I will post the results and encourage other players to experiment this as well.

[airball7]

That goes right in lockstep with a moronic friend of mine. I hadn't played with him in a few years and we were in some nonsense scramble, when he pulls out his 8 iron from a distance of 180 yards. It's early in the morning and chilly into a breeze, and uphill for good measure. I've got a 4 iron in my hand and I'm probably a club longer than him to begin with. As he addresses the ball I see the loft on the club and ask what the hell he's doing and he assures me it's the right club, then kills it to just inside 30 yards of the green.

 

This gets away from the original post a little, but relates perfectly insofar as how ego affects our judgment (which is why SkyCaddie and lasers are such a sobering slap in the face). I see the same mistakes all the time, and they absolutely keep amateur scores higher than they need to be:

 

1) Refusing to hit enough club. Like my buddy hitting 8 iron from 180, if you've done it once, that becomes the benchmark for club selection. It's got to be 15-1 in favor of approach shots that come up short as opposed to long; I rarely see anyone I play with blow an approach shot over the green.

 

2) Playing too stiff a shaft. Basically what I see is that an adult male under the age of 55 is using an S flex at the very minimum, when he could benefit from a far more flexible shaft at no expense to accuracy. If you look you'll notice I use very stiff shafts. This is because (a) I generate the clubhead speed to play them, and (b) I have a mechanical issue that causes me to flight the ball higher than I'd like. I'm working like mad with a teaching pro to trap the ball, and once I can do that I'll happily play a softer flex.

 

3) Failing to play sufficient driver loft. Unless you absolutely crush the ball or get a little scoopy as I am prone to, ten degrees should be the minimum. You'll carry it further, and straighter too.

 

4) Playing ill-suited clubs. I'll likely get flamed for this, so have at it. With so few tour players using blades anymore, what makes us think they're a good choice? I hit my second outdoor bucket this year yesterday and decided to bring my 690.mbs with me because they looked so pretty in the basement. Halfway through I realized this was the last time I would ever hit them; I struck the ball just fine but the LT is just a better golf club - far more forgiving and at no cost. Tiger's blades are a thing of beauty, as are Vijay's CG1s or Bob Tway's MP-33s, but these guys are 3 a side better than me. If I get to a +4 or +5 maybe I'll reconsider, but with so many great choices out there in irons now, you can get feel, playability, workability, and appearance in combinations that simply didn't exist even a decade ago. To really exacerbate it, as if on cue a kid from University Of Detroit's golf team came up next to me and HE had the LTs. We chatted for a while and he felt that they gave him a better chance of getting the ball in the hole in fewer shots than blades. What a novel concept. Look, I appreciate the aesthetics of the MP-67 as much as anyone, but any argument that it is a more efficient tool than a cavity-backed iron is specious and falls on deaf ears. Like persimmon and three-piece balata, blades are absolutely destined to become an archival relic, and that right soon. Watching Retief Goosen playing R7s when just two seasons ago he was using the RAC MB convinced me of this.

 

5) Gambling. Not playing for money, but trying to execute shots outside the range of one's skill level. I try and think of how I can play a given hole that will yield the lowest average score over 100 rounds. Unless there is absolutely a reason to play the hole otherwise (say 5 down with 5 to play in a match), there's no sense in trying to bite off the extra 20 yards or hit the 3 wood from a tight, downhill lie because over time, these decisions will lead to higher scores, period. It's in our nature as amateurs to assume that a very difficult shot we've pulled off before is always the proper play, when in fact it rarely is.

 

The above immutable truths apply far more to the general golfing population than to people reading this post, who are far more likely to be knowledgeable about the game and equipment. I try and get the ego out of my decision-making in golf as much as possible, but I can't always do it, as evidenced by my throwing the blades in the bag yesterday. Somewhere I saw a post that said something to the effect of "who cares how far you hit it?". The answer is simple: Everyone.

[Merlin_T]

That goes right in lockstep with a moronic friend of mine. I hadn't played with him in a few years and we were in some nonsense scramble, when he pulls out his 8 iron from a distance of 180 yards. It's early in the morning and chilly into a breeze, and uphill for good measure. I've got a 4 iron in my hand and I'm probably a club longer than him to begin with. As he addresses the ball I see the loft on the club and ask what the hell he's doing and he assures me it's the right club, then kills it to just inside 30 yards of the green.

 

This gets away from the original post a little, but relates perfectly insofar as how ego affects our judgment (which is why SkyCaddie and lasers are such a sobering slap in the face). I see the same mistakes all the time, and they absolutely keep amateur scores higher than they need to be:

 

1) Refusing to hit enough club. Like my buddy hitting 8 iron from 180, if you've done it once, that becomes the benchmark for club selection. It's got to be 15-1 in favor of approach shots that come up short as opposed to long; I rarely see anyone I play with blow an approach shot over the green.

 

2) Playing too stiff a shaft. Basically what I see is that an adult male under the age of 55 is using an S flex at the very minimum, when he could benefit from a far more flexible shaft at no expense to accuracy. If you look you'll notice I use very stiff shafts. This is because (a) I generate the clubhead speed to play them, and (b) I have a mechanical issue that causes me to flight the ball higher than I'd like. I'm working like mad with a teaching pro to trap the ball, and once I can do that I'll happily play a softer flex.

 

3) Failing to play sufficient driver loft. Unless you absolutely crush the ball or get a little scoopy as I am prone to, ten degrees should be the minimum. You'll carry it further, and straighter too.

 

4) Playing ill-suited clubs. I'll likely get flamed for this, so have at it. With so few tour players using blades anymore, what makes us think they're a good choice? I hit my second outdoor bucket this year yesterday and decided to bring my 690.mbs with me because they looked so pretty in the basement. Halfway through I realized this was the last time I would ever hit them; I struck the ball just fine but the LT is just a better golf club - far more forgiving and at no cost. Tiger's blades are a thing of beauty, as are Vijay's CG1s or Bob Tway's MP-33s, but these guys are 3 a side better than me. If I get to a +4 or +5 maybe I'll reconsider, but with so many great choices out there in irons now, you can get feel, playability, workability, and appearance in combinations that simply didn't exist even a decade ago. To really exacerbate it, as if on cue a kid from University Of Detroit's golf team came up next to me and HE had the LTs. We chatted for a while and he felt that they gave him a better chance of getting the ball in the hole in fewer shots than blades. What a novel concept. Look, I appreciate the aesthetics of the MP-67 as much as the anyone, but any argument that it is a more efficient tool than a cavity-backed iron is specious and falls on deaf ears. Like persimmon and three-piece balata, blades are absolutely destined to become an archival relic, and that right soon. Watching Retief Goosen playing R7s when just two seasons ago he was using the RAC MB convinced me of this.

 

5) Gambling. Not playing for money, but trying to execute shots outside the range of one's skill level. I try and think of how I can play a given hole that will yield the lowest average score over 100 rounds. Unless there is absolutely a reason to play the hole otherwise (say 5 down with 5 to play in a match), there's no sense in trying to bite off the extra 20 yards or hit the 3 wood from a tight, downhill lie because over time, these decisions will lead to higher scores, period. It's in our nature as amateurs to assume that a very difficult shot we've pulled off before is always the proper play, when in fact it rarely is.

 

The above immutable truths apply far more to the general golfing population than to people reading this post, who are far more likely to be knowledgeable about the game and equipment. I try and get the ego out of my decision-making in golf as much as possible, but I can't always do it, as evidenced by my throwing the blades in the bag yesterday. Somewhere I saw a post that said something to the effect of "who cares how far you hit it?". The answer is simple: Everyone.

 

Wow! Great & excellent "speach"!!! ;)

[upndown1]

Unless you are on a straight course with a straight line to the pin, gps yardages are not exact for distances hit unless you use the marker function and mark the start of your drive and the end of your drive such as the igolf has.

 

for example: 50yard wide fairway dogleg left - one guy hits it actually 300 right edge and another guy hits it actual 270 left edge. According to your gps, the guy on the left would have a shorter distance to the flag than the guy on the right. According to your gps, the guy on the left hit it farther but the guy on the right hit it further in ACTUAL distance.

GPS measures "as the crow flies" or "straight line" unless you have a start and stop function on your gps that measures your ACTUAL drive.

 

As far as long drives(measured by shotlink):

BAYHILL

 

Round 1

hole1: holmes 348, 3: Holmes 328, 4: Chopra 319, 5: Azinger 292, 8: 311 Holmes, 9: 308 Holmes, 10: 311 Chopra, 11: Weekley 315, 13: 280 Van Pelt, 15: Stanley 306, 16: Edfors 299, 18: Weekley 314

 

Average driving distance of all long drives: 310.9

 

this is by the best pros - the longest drive on each hole - so none of them even averaged 310. Getting ahold of a drive and hitting it 300 does NOT mean you AVERAGE 300. furthermore, they play on great conditioned courses with FIRMER fairways unless weather, and get a lot of roll.

 

Corey Pavin at Bayhill:

278, 259, 259, 263, 240, 242, 262, 255, 232, 269, 278, 232

averaging 255.8

 

don't think he is short (shortest on tour maybe) but you would NOT want to bet him 1000 dollars a hole on longest drive IN THE FAIRWAY.

I watched him drive the short par 4 at the FBR twice over 300.

 

I digressed, sorry :-P

[airball7]

Pavin is a real outlier in that not only is he the shortest hitter on tour, he is the shortest by a 5-7 yards every year now. As far as driving distance computation, someone earlier said that they only measure two holes a day, which I think is not the case now that they employ ShotLink. I heard him complain about how distance has become king on the PGA Tour, and while he's right, it would seem that he's done NOTHING to improve his driving distance through the years. It's almost as if he is trying to see how short (relatively) he can hit it and still compete at a high level out there. Either that or he won his major, has made a fortune, will make even more in a year or two on the Champions Tour, and doesn't care.

 

Above poster is right; most of the tour events I've attended featured pretty firm fairways, and the top guys are in the 310 ballpark. One of my very best friends - and a member of this site; bc4558 - played at the Buick Open pro am a few years ago with Kuehne and said he was roughly 70 yards longer than him off the tee. He was using some hybrid most of the day and was playing from 40 yards further back and still blowing it past BC, who is NOT a short hitter. You take a guy like Luke Donald, who is near the bottom of the Tour in driving distance in the 275 neighborhood, and he's not only averaging more than nearly every clown on the planet who thinks he's regularly hitting it well past that, he is also plenty capable of blasting it 40 yards by these same buffoons on command. The second best feature of SkyCaddie is that it reveals the fraud who thinks he hits it 50 yards longer than he does. The second worst is that it reveals that I hit it 15 yards shorter than I thought.

[Twixom]

You have to realize that scorecards measure down the middle of the hole from tee to green, doglegs and all. SkyCaddie is GPS so it takes the distance between to points. Where you tee'd off from and where you ended. They are both correct yardages. On a 400 yard par 4 with a 100 yard wedge in is still a 300 yard drive anyway you look at it.

[ghodges]

That goes right in lockstep with a moronic friend of mine. I hadn't played with him in a few years and we were in some nonsense scramble, when he pulls out his 8 iron from a distance of 180 yards. It's early in the morning and chilly into a breeze, and uphill for good measure. I've got a 4 iron in my hand and I'm probably a club longer than him to begin with. As he addresses the ball I see the loft on the club and ask what the hell he's doing and he assures me it's the right club, then kills it to just inside 30 yards of the green.

 

This gets away from the original post a little, but relates perfectly insofar as how ego affects our judgment (which is why SkyCaddie and lasers are such a sobering slap in the face). I see the same mistakes all the time, and they absolutely keep amateur scores higher than they need to be:

 

1) Refusing to hit enough club. Like my buddy hitting 8 iron from 180, if you've done it once, that becomes the benchmark for club selection. It's got to be 15-1 in favor of approach shots that come up short as opposed to long; I rarely see anyone I play with blow an approach shot over the green.

 

2) Playing too stiff a shaft. Basically what I see is that an adult male under the age of 55 is using an S flex at the very minimum, when he could benefit from a far more flexible shaft at no expense to accuracy. If you look you'll notice I use very stiff shafts. This is because (a) I generate the clubhead speed to play them, and (b) I have a mechanical issue that causes me to flight the ball higher than I'd like. I'm working like mad with a teaching pro to trap the ball, and once I can do that I'll happily play a softer flex.

 

3) Failing to play sufficient driver loft. Unless you absolutely crush the ball or get a little scoopy as I am prone to, ten degrees should be the minimum. You'll carry it further, and straighter too.

 

4) Playing ill-suited clubs. I'll likely get flamed for this, so have at it. With so few tour players using blades anymore, what makes us think they're a good choice? I hit my second outdoor bucket this year yesterday and decided to bring my 690.mbs with me because they looked so pretty in the basement. Halfway through I realized this was the last time I would ever hit them; I struck the ball just fine but the LT is just a better golf club - far more forgiving and at no cost. Tiger's blades are a thing of beauty, as are Vijay's CG1s or Bob Tway's MP-33s, but these guys are 3 a side better than me. If I get to a +4 or +5 maybe I'll reconsider, but with so many great choices out there in irons now, you can get feel, playability, workability, and appearance in combinations that simply didn't exist even a decade ago. To really exacerbate it, as if on cue a kid from University Of Detroit's golf team came up next to me and HE had the LTs. We chatted for a while and he felt that they gave him a better chance of getting the ball in the hole in fewer shots than blades. What a novel concept. Look, I appreciate the aesthetics of the MP-67 as much as the anyone, but any argument that it is a more efficient tool than a cavity-backed iron is specious and falls on deaf ears. Like persimmon and three-piece balata, blades are absolutely destined to become an archival relic, and that right soon. Watching Retief Goosen playing R7s when just two seasons ago he was using the RAC MB convinced me of this.

 

5) Gambling. Not playing for money, but trying to execute shots outside the range of one's skill level. I try and think of how I can play a given hole that will yield the lowest average score over 100 rounds. Unless there is absolutely a reason to play the hole otherwise (say 5 down with 5 to play in a match), there's no sense in trying to bite off the extra 20 yards or hit the 3 wood from a tight, downhill lie because over time, these decisions will lead to higher scores, period. It's in our nature as amateurs to assume that a very difficult shot we've pulled off before is always the proper play, when in fact it rarely is.

 

The above immutable truths apply far more to the general golfing population than to people reading this post, who are far more likely to be knowledgeable about the game and equipment. I try and get the ego out of my decision-making in golf as much as possible, but I can't always do it, as evidenced by my throwing the blades in the bag yesterday. Somewhere I saw a post that said something to the effect of "who cares how far you hit it?". The answer is simple: Everyone.

 

Excellent post! Very well thought out and said! ;)

[thenewbie]

You have to realize that scorecards measure down the middle of the hole from tee to green, doglegs and all. SkyCaddie is GPS so it takes the distance between to points. Where you tee'd off from and where you ended. They are both correct yardages. On a 400 yard par 4 with a 100 yard wedge in is still a 300 yard drive anyway you look at it.

 

I was just going to say that. the skycaddie measures your drive correctly, not-withstanding where your ball ends up. you can hit it 300 3 fairways down, and it'll still just calculate point A to point B and tell you how far it is. and I like how you put that second part. if I'm on a 400 yeard hole, and all I've got left is a little lob wedge pitch onto the green, than how did I NOT take it 300.

 

I supose a better question is how can I have a little lob wedge pitch left, then chunk it, then blade another lob wedge over the green, then 3 putt for a double bogey. ;)

[mjm1]

You have to realize that scorecards measure down the middle of the hole from tee to green, doglegs and all. SkyCaddie is GPS so it takes the distance between to points. Where you tee'd off from and where you ended. They are both correct yardages. On a 400 yard par 4 with a 100 yard wedge in is still a 300 yard drive anyway you look at it.

 

No, it's not.

[Twixom]

You have to realize that scorecards measure down the middle of the hole from tee to green, doglegs and all. SkyCaddie is GPS so it takes the distance between to points. Where you tee'd off from and where you ended. They are both correct yardages. On a 400 yard par 4 with a 100 yard wedge in is still a 300 yard drive anyway you look at it.

 

 

 

No, it's not.

 

 

 

400-100=300

[Babydaddy]

I have intelligolf birdie edition on my Palm Treo and even though it does not have GPS, I still started paying close attention to all of my yardages when I started using it. I was humbled for sure. I think that we tend to see our flushed shot as our average but when you start mapping out for example, how long the carry is to the first bunker on the left from the tee, you start seeing that you can only carry a certain distance and you learn reality from there.

I also learned about something I call the protractor effect. I actually mapped this out in my office one Monday morning. It occured to me that I may have needed to add a club to my approach that was that was sitting at the 150 marker but was 80 yards right of the center of the hole, or the straight line from tee to green. I wanted to actually draw lines and use math to see if I could develop a formula along the lines of "for every 25 yards off the center line of the hole, tee to green, add 10 yards to your shot." After doing this I did develop a formula based on math and geometry, and I learned that I should have added 2 clubs instead of the one that I estimated.

I want to get a GPS device of some sort. My hands are too shaky for the pinseeker. I believe that having a reference, that is constant day after day is truly helpful in all phases of the game. I use an alignment device for all shots in practice from the putter to the tee. I check my grip in the mirror every morning, etc..So to me having a constant reference and knowledge of your average distances can only help.

[blade_man]

I have intelligolf birdie edition on my Palm Treo and even though it does not have GPS, I still started paying close attention to all of my yardages when I started using it. I was humbled for sure. I think that we tend to see our flushed shot as our average but when you start mapping out for example, how long the carry is to the first bunker on the left from the tee, you start seeing that you can only carry a certain distance and you learn reality from there.

I also learned about something I call the protractor effect. I actually mapped this out in my office one Monday morning. It occured to me that I may have needed to add a club to my approach that was that was sitting at the 150 marker but was 80 yards right of the center of the hole, or the straight line from tee to green. I wanted to actually draw lines and use math to see if I could develop a formula along the lines of "for every 25 yards off the center line of the hole, tee to green, add 10 yards to your shot." After doing this I did develop a formula based on math and geometry, and I learned that I should have added 2 clubs instead of the one that I estimated.

I want to get a GPS device of some sort. My hands are too shaky for the pinseeker. I believe that having a reference, that is constant day after day is truly helpful in all phases of the game. I use an alignment device for all shots in practice from the putter to the tee. I check my grip in the mirror every morning, etc..So to me having a constant reference and knowledge of your average distances can only help.

 

Without a doubt! I like knowing how far I hit EACH club not just the driver! My guess would be that 80% of the field have no idea of how far the can carry a club!? I know within 2 yards on each club (baring that perfect swing)hehe, on the shorter clubs there is between 13 and 16 yards different, on longer clubs there are 10 to 12 yards different but the thing is you must be able to ADD if the shot is 50 yards uphill from 150 yards my 9 iron is not going to get there!

[blade_man]

You have to realize that scorecards measure down the middle of the hole from tee to green, doglegs and all. SkyCaddie is GPS so it takes the distance between to points. Where you tee'd off from and where you ended. They are both correct yardages. On a 400 yard par 4 with a 100 yard wedge in is still a 300 yard drive anyway you look at it.

 

 

 

No, it's not.

 

 

 

400-100=300

 

Quick question, is it farther to walk across the room or follow the base boards?

[Brian_Mc]

I hope this picture helps explain... The yellow line indicates the full length of the hole per the scorecard... say it's 400 yrds. If you hit down the red line, you shortened the hole. Subtracting the approach shot from the scorecard distance is NOT accurate! Some of these posts make me think that there is still some confusion...

 

 

 

Also, I understand the survey guys position, but I don't think it's valid. Selective availability (intentional error introduced in the signal from the satelite) used to cause that +/- 15 yd accuracy. My Garmin GPS would require averaging to get down to 3 yd accuracy for a waypoint. Now that selective availability isn't active, that ain't the case. I believe the +/- 3 yd accuracy and I bet it's typically better than that. Sorry for getting so geeky about this...

[atlanta golfer]

If you want to really be depressed, try using the skycaddie mark ball function in the winter when it is maybe 40 or 50 degrees. The distances you get on your drives is pathetic.

 

On the positive side, I was reading last month's Golf magazine article on golf balls and the various distances and spin rates, cover hardness, etc. I see that for a 90 mph swing speed, most of the drives total carry was right in the 250 to 260 yard range. This is what I've been claiming I hit with an average swing speed and R flex shafts. So in my case my estimates were reasonably close.

 

The real problem comes in when you don't hit it just perfect every time, and it is somewhat cold or windy, then all of a sudden your 260 yard drive you think you can hit ends up at 220. Nothing worse than having to take out hybrid for your second shot on a par 4.