Anyone else get way worse after using DECADE?

[Ross_Albatross]

46 minutes ago, Trap Junior said:

Another bit of my 2 cents on this.  I prefer to be short sided (unless its an impossible shot) a lot more than say missing the green after picking a more conservative strategy and haveing a 40 yds bunker shot or a 35 yard pitch.  I find those harder than a flop or 10 yard bunker shot.

 

Also a slight flaw I would suggest is using tour pro data to apply to amateurs or less skillful ones say like scratch golfers.

 

A tour pro playing a driver 10 times on the same hole versus iron/3wood might give different results to an amateur who has no predictable miss and sprays it all over the place and hots driver 10 times on the same hole versus a hybrid for example.

 

I'm open to being wrong on that but its a question I have in my head about the strategy.

Interesting comments. Full disclaimer: I'm a numbers guy, evaluate risk/reward scenarios at a big hedge fund for a living, so I have a big penchant towards the : 'play the strategy that has the lowest expected number of strokes to hole out in the long run' side (would never get a R-square tattoo though to convince others!), but I'm not convinced we have the best benchmarks (nor can we have them). Always wondered if the great up and down % from pros was coming from their chipping abilities, their pure roll putting stroke from mid-ish range, their missGIR to great bailout spots or obviously, a combo of all those things - so it's difficult to compare ourselves to this and figure out where the weakness truly is.

 

Still, knowing these systems parameters is already a plus in my opinion, rather than feeling your way through the round/course/tourney and thinks you play optimally (but having, by default, no clue) - you can then apply it to your game, that course, those conditions to objectively see if you manage your way around correctly

[Trap Junior]

2 hours ago, PracticeSwinger said:

Interesting comments. Full disclaimer: I'm a numbers guy, evaluate risk/reward scenarios at a big hedge fund for a living, so I have a big penchant towards the : 'play the strategy that has the lowest expected number of strokes to hole out in the long run' side (would never get a R-square tattoo though to convince others!), but I'm not convinced we have the best benchmarks (nor can we have them). Always wondered if the great up and down % from pros was coming from their chipping abilities, their pure roll putting stroke from mid-ish range, their missGIR to great bailout spots or obviously, a combo of all those things - so it's difficult to compare ourselves to this and figure out where the weakness truly is.

 

Still, knowing these systems parameters is already a plus in my opinion, rather than feeling your way through the round/course/tourney and thinks you play optimally (but having, by default, no clue) - you can then apply it to your game, that course, those conditions to objectively see if you manage your way around correctly

I'm too dumb to do out the strokes gained over a round or day from adopting a certain strategy.  I'm not a numbers guy.   Scotts message is play the forumla and over the long haul you'll be better off than not doing it.

My argument is that yes you might be lower stroke average over a season or long period of time but you will miss out on the highs.  I'd rather win one week and miss the cut by 10 the next week than two top 10 finishes for example.

[bladehunter]

On 6/24/2024 at 4:31 PM, kiawah said:

I had a two year stint with DECADE Golf while playing in college a few years ago that really damaged my confidence and hurt my game in a plethora of ways. I played a few good rounds here and there but started playing 1000x better as soon as I forgot basically everything about it. I am really interested in reading anything about course management and the mental game as there is always room for improvement in all parts of the game, especially managing the golf course well, but there are just so many things that I look back on wondering what the heck I was thinking to pay money for this. Curious to see if anyone else had a similar experience. 

 

The aspects that I liked:

• The 9/10 rule from the trees
• The putting speed drill
• The Mental Scorecard
• The "how to practice" section
• Picking safer targets out of the rough/from outside 200 yards
• Managing expectations in general

 

Areas where I felt like it was not a good fit for me:

• Way too many equations to determine target on approach shots
• I wasn't really losing many shots trying to chase pins in the first place
• Trying to hit the same shot shape 95% of the time destroyed my golf swing (got super in to out w/ my path to make sure I could ALWAYS draw it, made me a much worse player) and stifled creativity/fun
  • The idea that people who work the ball have a ton of shots, but aren't good at any of them is so flawed, especially considering that if your completely one-dimensional swing is faltering, you are totally cooked
• Hitting too many drivers resulted in more lost balls which resulted in me further destroying my swing and confidence
• Incongruities that did not make sense, such as, "you will make more birdies aiming away from most pins, but trying to give yourself a certain leave from inside 60 yards will destroy your proximity"
• "Stop trying to make putts" or "only focus on speed" made me a horrible putter from inside of 10 feet
• Calculating which areas around the green are a 1 vs a 2 vs a 3 caused me to internalize all of the trouble and forget about where I wanted to hit it in the first place
• Needlessly overcomplicated many basic aspects of the game, created more indecision, consumed a lot of mental energy to pinpoint a target that I might have settled on anyway
• It will always be easier to commit to a target you WANT to aim at as opposed to one that you had to calculate in a few seconds that you have wavering confidence in
• Almost zero chance you can retain all of the info needed about the process under pressure to hit a good shot
• The idea that because 1/3 of the Tour is supposedly using it, everyone should. To me, it looks like 67% of guys are not using it and get by just fine
• Scott Fawcett's personality in general

 

Perhaps I was not implementing all the concepts properly, but I tried really hard to go about it properly, and I just could not make it work. Perhaps more math-oriented people have a better chance of improving through the system, but I really hit a low point while using it. I know everyone usually thinks that the system is great and I don't mean to "yuck anyone's yum" since I know lots of guys who have been very successful in using it, but I have always wondered if I'm the only guy that tried this system and got worse.

Short answer - yes.  Sort of 
 

long answer. - putting. It did nothing for putting and driving. Except kill all confidence in both.  To me it just gave a “ you suck “ moment after every round.  And for reference. I was playing to a +1.2 handicap at that time.  Down to a +2 low.  
 

I won’t go down the rabbit hole too far.  Because it will just start an argument.  But I never could make the decision tree match my course.  Meaning it would have me be aggressive in places where you cannot be .  And conservative in places I hit driver normally.  .  I tried it for over 18 months.  I hit less greens on approach while using it and had wider proximity , because it nullified my strength ( irons and wedges ) -by asking me to aim away more often.  I’m sure I was supposed to do some adjusting somewhere.  But to what end ?  Just to get me back to where I instinctively was ?  
 

I loved it for stats interface.  But one day I just opted out.  And that was 7 months ago.  I haven’t missed it. And I’m just finally going back to the instinctive player I was at my best.  And handicap has trended back down from its high of 1.8. Headed back to plus territory.  Correlation isn’t causation?  Sure. But I also believe in doing whatever works.  And I tried it long enough to know it’s not for me. And now I’m seeing the rebound.  Coincidence or not. I’m riding the wave back down.  
 

 

I think it appeals to mechanical numbers guys. And hamstrings  feel players who are already decent to good.    I’m sure alot of tour guys don’t want stats in their face  daily either , they pay people to see them and only sound the alarm at certain points. 

[Hstead]

I was a member of decade for a year and tracked everything.  Scott messaged me and recommended I hit my putts softer since I almost always missed long.  I rarely three putted though.  My make percentage was low outside of 20 feet, but rarely three putted.  My putting became quite a bit worse.  

 

I am a player that sees a shot and it isn't always where the decade aim point is.  I play better when I commit 100% to the shot I see versus picking the decade targets.  I could never get comfortable committing to the decade targets at certain times and the results were poorly executed shots due to lack of commitment.

 

I have talked with four former Tour players, two of which were Ryder cuppers.  They didn't buy into decade targets for the exact same reasons.  It is more important to feel confident, comfortable, and commit to a target in my humble opinion.  Sometimes my target is more aggressive than decade and sometimes it is less.  I don't believe emotions can be factored into a "Stat".  I have also been told by a very good source, a guy that has caddied on tour for three decades, that he spoke with both Bryson and Zalatoris, and both said they did not use the decade targets and most of the time were aiming at flagsticks way more often than decade calls for.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Hstead said:

I was a member of decade for a year and tracked everything.  Scott messaged me and recommended I hit my putts softer since I almost always missed long.  I rarely three putted though.  My make percentage was low outside of 20 feet, but rarely three putted.  My putting became quite a bit worse.  

 

I am a player that sees a shot and it isn't always where the decade aim point is.  I play better when I commit 100% to the shot I see versus picking the decade targets.  I could never get comfortable committing to the decade targets at certain times and the results were poorly executed shots due to lack of commitment.

 

I have talked with four former Tour players, two of which were Ryder cuppers.  They didn't buy into decade targets for the exact same reasons.  It is more important to feel confident, comfortable, and commit to a target in my humble opinion.  Sometimes my target is more aggressive than decade and sometimes it is less.  I don't believe emotions can be factored into a "Stat".  I have also been told by a very good source, a guy that has caddied on tour for three decades, that he spoke with both Bryson and Zalatoris, and both said they did not use the decade targets and most of the time were aiming at flagsticks way more often than decade calls for.

 

I think the (valid, IMO) reaction to that would be of course you're going to hit a better shot if you're comfortable, even if it's the long-term "worse" target, than if you're uncomfortable hitting to the right target.

 

For many, whether it's what I do or what Scott says or whatever, the trick of it is (and it's not much of a trick): get comfortable aiming at the proper target. For a lot of golfers, they're actually comforted and more confident knowing they're aiming at the "correct" target.

[Ross_Albatross]

20 hours ago, Trap Junior said:

I'd rather win one week and miss the cut by 10 the next week than two top 10 finishes for example.

Of course circonstances matter; if you’re doing this for a living and there’s a paycheck gap compared to bragging to your league buddies about going low shooting 66 while scoring 80 the next week compared to 74 on both occasions…

 

I wonder how much of this goes at the elite level also; guys going low usually do it with better than their normal proximity (and the upcoming putt dropping)… is that just a great striking day (good numbers, swing working on all cylinders) and/or a tad of ‘I’ll go at it on that one’ - that could swing a round both ways

[Nels55]

On 6/28/2024 at 11:44 AM, bladehunter said:

Short answer - yes.  Sort of 
 

long answer. - putting. It did nothing for putting and driving. Except kill all confidence in both.  To me it just gave a “ you suck “ moment after every round.  And for reference. I was playing to a +1.2 handicap at that time.  Down to a +2 low.  
 

I won’t go down the rabbit hole too far.  Because it will just start an argument.  But I never could make the decision tree match my course.  Meaning it would have me be aggressive in places where you cannot be .  And conservative in places I hit driver normally.  .  I tried it for over 18 months.  I hit less greens on approach while using it and had wider proximity , because it nullified my strength ( irons and wedges ) -by asking me to aim away more often.  I’m sure I was supposed to do some adjusting somewhere.  But to what end ?  Just to get me back to where I instinctively was ?  
 

I loved it for stats interface.  But one day I just opted out.  And that was 7 months ago.  I haven’t missed it. And I’m just finally going back to the instinctive player I was at my best.  And handicap has trended back down from its high of 1.8. Headed back to plus territory.  Correlation isn’t causation?  Sure. But I also believe in doing whatever works.  And I tried it long enough to know it’s not for me. And now I’m seeing the rebound.  Coincidence or not. I’m riding the wave back down.  
 

 

I think it appeals to mechanical numbers guys. And hamstrings  feel players who are already decent to good.    I’m sure alot of tour guys don’t want stats in their face  daily either , they pay people to see them and only sound the alarm at certain points. 

Interesting stuff.  Something that a pro I had lessons with named David Balbi told me seems to be along the same lines.  He used a device called focus band which teaches a person to learn how to get the mind into a meditative sort of state by measuring brain waves.  This worked really well for Balbi and he said that before hitting a shot he would not pick a shot shape but would go through the focus band routine which is target focused and then hit whatever shot shape his unconscious mind choose.  He mentioned that he thought that it was possible that tour players sometimes hit double crosses because they tried to play shots that their subconscious mind was not wanting to produce.  

 

In the end it doesn't matter much as long as the game is enjoyed and there is no one right answer to golf that works for everyone.

[bladehunter]

4 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Interesting stuff.  Something that a pro I had lessons with named David Balbi told me seems to be along the same lines.  He used a device called focus band which teaches a person to learn how to get the mind into a meditative sort of state by measuring brain waves.  This worked really well for Balbi and he said that before hitting a shot he would not pick a shot shape but would go through the focus band routine which is target focused and then hit whatever shot shape his unconscious mind choose.  He mentioned that he thought that it was possible that tour players sometimes hit double crosses because they tried to play shots that their subconscious mind was not wanting to produce.  

 

In the end it doesn't matter much as long as the game is enjoyed and there is no one right answer to golf that works for everyone.

Oh this is absolutely true , in the sense that if I try to hit a shot that I didn’t “ see” … that’s 100 % when the double cross or dead pull or big block comes in.  Now sometimes you can’t get a very clear picture. And that’s troubling.  It will usually be on a in between distance.  Or some silly lie or when the wind is bad or swirling.  It’s important to have a concrete shot in the quiver , like a holdoff little punch , etc. something safe to hit the green with.  Or at least not produce curves. But on the flip side. When you get a good number. The wind is down and you can just get in the tunnel and “ see” exactly what to do. It’s easy then.  The mind has no distractions.  
 

Putting is the same. If you can increase the opportunities where you know what it will do , and know how hard to hit it. Putting becomes a game where every putt scares the hole. But on days when you’re not in sync.  Or you’re “ blind” as I call it. Best to just play defense. Try not to 3 putt. I haven’t  cracked the code of why somedays are just blind. But they are.  

Edited June 30, 2024 by bladehunter

[Nels55]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Oh this is absolutely true , in the sense that if I try to hit a shot that I didn’t “ see” … that’s 100 % when the double cross or dead pull or big block comes in.  Now sometimes you can’t get a very clear picture. And that’s troubling.  It will usually be on a in between distance.  Or some silly lie or when the wind is bad or swirling.  It’s important to have a concrete shot in the quiver , like a holdoff little punch , etc. something safe to hit the green with.  Or at least not produce curves. But on the flip side. When you get a good number. The wind is down and you can just get in the tunnel and “ see” exactly what to do. It’s easy then.  The mind has no distractions.  
 

Putting is the same. If you can increase the opportunities where you know what it will do , and know how hard to hit it. Putting becomes a game where every putt scares the hole. But on days when you’re not in sync.  Or you’re “ blind” as I call it. Best to just play defense. Try not to 3 putt. I haven’t  cracked the code of why somedays are just blind. But they are.  

I would say that the focus band method takes away the anxiety over the difficult shots that you can't see as you don't have to decide on anything.  Balbi told me that when he stood behind the ball and asked 'what would a good shot look like here' he would sometimes get a picture of a draw or a fade and other times nothing.  He didn't care either way as he was not trying to control the shot.  I know that a lot of folks don't believe in that sort of thing but it works for some and Balbi said that it was hard for him to shoot over par doing that stuff. 

[RichieHunt]

Most amateurs, and even a lot of Tour pros, I've watched putt tend to not play enough break and then subsequently hit their putts harder so they have a chance of making the putt. 

From my research, once the putt gets longer than 12 feet, there's too much luck involved compared to skill with actually sinking the putt.  We tested this out with the Perfect Putter rolling and at beyond 12 feet, you can roll the same exact golf ball on the same part of the track and then putts start to miss substantially more than say 8-feet.  The green surface my have something that causes the ball to not move as fast or move it offline just a hair or the wind may come cause one putt to miss and another to make.  

Also from my research with amateurs, once they get closer to about 15-feet away, their speed control and overall putting (using SG - Putting) improves when they are just trying to hit the ball to the hole instead of trying to hit it the appropriate speed which would leave the ball anywhere from 6"-18" from the cup (depending on many factors like the stimp and the slope of the putt).  The amateurs we tested inevitably found themselves moving their AimPoint higher and hitting it softer and actually making more putts because they were not closer to the correct AimPoint and the optimal capture speed.

The caveats we have found is if on the bottom half of the fall line clock (uphill putts), particularly if you're closer to being between 5 o'clock to 7 o'clock.  You don't need to be as conscious of not missing on the low side because the ball is moving faster and will come to a half quicker.  That means less break and also less likely you'll leave yourself with a much longer putt if you miss on the low side.

But if you're on the top-half of the fall line clock and you're more than 12-feet from the hole on greens with a 9.5 stimp or more...you should take umbrage with missing those putts low.  You've just greatly decreased our odds of making the putt while greatly increasing your odds of 3-putting.  From that distance you're most likely 2-putting anyway and if you make the putt there was a great deal of luck involved.  So you're better off missing high. 
 

With putts on slow greens and/or within 12-feet, it's more reasonable to miss some putts low and you're not going to be punished as much for most of your misses.  But outside 12-feet, you're better off not expecting to make the putt and put yourself in the best position to ensure that you don't 3-putt. 

It's not really 'lag putting', it's more about the line and making sure you don't miss low and don't hit it too hard.  

 

 

 

 

HoC

[smashdn]

On 6/28/2024 at 9:43 AM, PracticeSwinger said:

Interesting comments. Full disclaimer: I'm a numbers guy, evaluate risk/reward scenarios at a big hedge fund for a living, so I have a big penchant towards the : 'play the strategy that has the lowest expected number of strokes to hole out in the long run' side (would never get a R-square tattoo though to convince others!), but I'm not convinced we have the best benchmarks (nor can we have them). Always wondered if the great up and down % from pros was coming from their chipping abilities, their pure roll putting stroke from mid-ish range, their missGIR to great bailout spots or obviously, a combo of all those things - so it's difficult to compare ourselves to this and figure out where the weakness truly is.

 

Still, knowing these systems parameters is already a plus in my opinion, rather than feeling your way through the round/course/tourney and thinks you play optimally (but having, by default, no clue) - you can then apply it to your game, that course, those conditions to objectively see if you manage your way around correctly

 

Is the comparison used to determine where the weakness is or to determine what the ceiling is?  I had rather think the latter.  And the application is, when you objectively look at/measure your performance in a particular aspect of the game to determine whether it is worth your time to work on it specifically to improve.  If I am already performing at +75% of what the best tour player can do, then I am pretty darn happy and need to look elsewhere for the needles in the haystack of improvement. 

 

While I do not disagree with the idea of defaulting to the accepted strategy, you also need to know upon what it is based so that you can evaluate when it is appropriate to take on more risk or on less risk.  Most of us are not competing across four rounds of golf nor across a season-long points race for our livelihoods.  Sometimes, rare times, you have to go for it in the face of risk.

[gentles]

19 hours ago, RichieHunt said:

Most amateurs, and even a lot of Tour pros, I've watched putt tend to not play enough break and then subsequently hit their putts harder so they have a chance of making the putt. 

From my research, once the putt gets longer than 12 feet, there's too much luck involved compared to skill with actually sinking the putt.  We tested this out with the Perfect Putter rolling and at beyond 12 feet, you can roll the same exact golf ball on the same part of the track and then putts start to miss substantially more than say 8-feet.  The green surface my have something that causes the ball to not move as fast or move it offline just a hair or the wind may come cause one putt to miss and another to make.  

Also from my research with amateurs, once they get closer to about 15-feet away, their speed control and overall putting (using SG - Putting) improves when they are just trying to hit the ball to the hole instead of trying to hit it the appropriate speed which would leave the ball anywhere from 6"-18" from the cup (depending on many factors like the stimp and the slope of the putt).  The amateurs we tested inevitably found themselves moving their AimPoint higher and hitting it softer and actually making more putts because they were not closer to the correct AimPoint and the optimal capture speed.

The caveats we have found is if on the bottom half of the fall line clock (uphill putts), particularly if you're closer to being between 5 o'clock to 7 o'clock.  You don't need to be as conscious of not missing on the low side because the ball is moving faster and will come to a half quicker.  That means less break and also less likely you'll leave yourself with a much longer putt if you miss on the low side.

But if you're on the top-half of the fall line clock and you're more than 12-feet from the hole on greens with a 9.5 stimp or more...you should take umbrage with missing those putts low.  You've just greatly decreased our odds of making the putt while greatly increasing your odds of 3-putting.  From that distance you're most likely 2-putting anyway and if you make the putt there was a great deal of luck involved.  So you're better off missing high. 
 

With putts on slow greens and/or within 12-feet, it's more reasonable to miss some putts low and you're not going to be punished as much for most of your misses.  But outside 12-feet, you're better off not expecting to make the putt and put yourself in the best position to ensure that you don't 3-putt. 

It's not really 'lag putting', it's more about the line and making sure you don't miss low and don't hit it too hard.  

 

 

 

 

HoC

Rich do you think most ams would do well try and miss every 15 footer and longer 6 inches high and slightly short? Especially on the putts with more slope? Given what you’ve described it seems like a decent rule of thumb

[me05501]

It seems obvious that the Decade method is designed for competitive players and is meant to fit their needs. It seems to assume that comps are played on courses designed and conditioned to test better players.  

 

To the point made by @Trap Junior, the perils of being short-sided vary a lot depending on the kind of course you're playing.

 

If you're at Muirfield Village it might mean being in a deep bunker hitting to a tight pin on a green that's running 13-14. If you're at a typical resort course or country club it may be a routine up and down. 

 

 

[RichieHunt]

3 hours ago, gentles said:

Rich do you think most ams would do well try and miss every 15 footer and longer 6 inches high and slightly short? Especially on the putts with more slope? Given what you’ve described it seems like a decent rule of thumb

 

I prefer to use AimPoint and it also depends on the putt and stimp.

For example, if I'm on a course with a 10 stimp and the putt is between 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock and I read the slope at 2%, I would probably look to reading the putt as at least 2-1/4% and more likely at 2-1/2% for the reasons I've stated.

On uphill putts you probably should not read that any more than 2-1/4%.  And on slow greens there's little need for favoring the high read as well.

It's not really about 'trying to miss', but more about understanding that you are likely to miss and if you do make it from that distance...luck has become increasingly more responsible for that putt being made.  So you're really just 'playing for your misses.'

And the best way to 'play for your misses' is to find a miss that will provide you a better chance of the putt actually being made while greatly improving your odds of not 3-putting.  That's why favoring the high side on downhill and sidehill putts particularly on faster greens is so important.

Putting skill actually shows up in the following areas:

1.  The golfer's ability to make putts from 4-12 feet
2.  The golfer's ability to avoid 3-putt from 15+ feet

But note, favoring the high side reads does take practice.  It's almost as jarring as going from hitting a fade to hitting a draw.  So many golfers are so used to under-reading and hitting putts too firm that favoring a high side read and having to hit it softer doesn't come naturally.  And it's also easy to forget things like not favoring too high of a read on an uphill putt.



RH

[ferrispgm]

On 6/25/2024 at 6:46 AM, smashdn said:

But I also see the need to move the ball both ways

In general, I agree with your comments about players that can shape shots having a better understanding of face/path and can make some corrections if it's off.  However, moving the ball both ways is overrated, especially if you aren't already a highly skilled player with a very consistent flight.  It never fails, I play with randoms ranging from a 3 to a 20....and every weekend someone will say they are gonna try to hit a draw or a fade on a particular shot...the success rate of this is probably around 15% and that's probably being generous.  The rate at which those shots end up in bad situations leading to bogey or worse (even when they pull it off)...85%+ (again being generous).  

 

If your natural shot is a draw aim at the center of the green.  If it's a fade, aim at the center of the green.  If it's a draw and the pin is left, congrats you have a higher chance of hitting it close....if it's on the right, you have a chance at a relatively stress free par assuming a normal green. 

 

This is just my opinion, but I think that because of the high number of variables on every shot in golf, people tend to become over analytical with literally everything when they play.  Yes, there are adjustments for lie or wind but if you can't hit a vast majority of shots where you want, why would you try to do something different on a particular swing to make it curve a different way?  If you naturally hit a draw and you want to cut one to a right pin....If you over cut you are short sided and in a tough spot...if you double cross you likely long and left into the 2nd cut or in AZ over a cart path and into the desert lol.  If you hit it straight fine, or if you pull it off great....so you basically have a 25% chance to pull it off (assuming you hit it solid) and a much higher chance to make bogey or worse.  

 

There have been 2 things that have helped lower my handicap....making my swing better and course strategy....My course strategy now is this:  Tee the ball up, aim down the middle and hit....find ball, adjust for lie/wind...aim at the middle of the green and hit. Under 115 yards I'm a little more aggressive but not much.  My worst round so far this year is 75 with a 40 on the front 9.  I can promise you that normally that round would have been a 78 or higher.  Keep it simple and play boring golf, not TV golf.  It will suit everyone better.

 

Rant over.

[smashdn]

I am not even sure what my "natural" shape is any longer.  I play a fade more often than not and is default but there are plenty of opportunities to play a small draw as well.

 

I tend to aim at left side of greens and fade it back to the center.  Rarely with an iron will I miss left.  If I am trying to hit a fade, the miss "left" will be straight.

 

I made the mistake in my round yesterday trying to shape a few shots out of trouble.  That is where I make mistakes regarding working the ball.  When I have a nice fairway lie the misses are typically pretty good.  Twice I should have punched back to the fairway.

 

One hole at our course I play as a lay-up 5i or 4i off the tee.  I aim at the centerline and hit a fade.  That club leaves me short of a fairway bunker.  A straight miss is in the middle of the fairway.  A badly pushed shot is right rough but still with a PW in my hand.  Pull it off perfectly and it is a 54 or 52 to a green that is angled front right to back left, the natural dispersion shape for a right hander.

[jdoylesan]

On 6/25/2024 at 6:15 AM, mstuewe said:

If you are losing balls off of the tee, then you are not aiming far enough away from trouble on your drives.  Maybe your dispersion is too wide to hit driver, or maybe you weren't accounting for 65 yards of width between penalty areas (OB and water) and fairways at least 40 yards wide where your driver typically lands?

And that's one of the big problems with the Decade. In many ways, especially with tee shots it's far too simplistic.  Decade says to pull driver if you have 65 yards between harzards.  However on pretty much every golf course a college player competes on, there are a hundred ways to lose a ball, get stuck in the trees, in a cactus, in high fescue, etc. within that 65 yard width between hazards. And the vast majority of the fairways they're hitting into are much skinnier than 40 yards. These guys aren't playing muni courses.  And that's why when you go watch D1 college and pro events, they largely ignore that 65 yard "rule" and use irons and less than driver woods all the time.  Fawcett does have his strengths, but situational awareness is not one of them. 

[b.mattay]

On 7/1/2024 at 9:44 AM, RichieHunt said:

But if you're on the top-half of the fall line clock and you're more than 12-feet from the hole on greens with a 9.5 stimp or more...you should take umbrage with missing those putts low.  You've just greatly decreased our odds of making the putt while greatly increasing your odds of 3-putting.  From that distance you're most likely 2-putting anyway and if you make the putt there was a great deal of luck involved.  So you're better off missing high. 

I LOVE this approach to putting. When buddies ask me about lag putting, I tell them that outside of 10-15 feet, I just keep adjusting my read higher and higher until I hit the point where I feel like the putt will never be low! Anecdotally, this approach, along with the Fawcett 4 Coin Drill, has dropped my three putts/round from 1.0-1.1 4 years ago to between 0.1-0.2 the last 3 years.

[b.mattay]

4 hours ago, jdoylesan said:

And that's one of the big problems with the Decade. In many ways, especially with tee shots it's far too simplistic.  Decade says to pull driver if you have 65 yards between harzards.  However on pretty much every golf course a college player competes on, there are a hundred ways to lose a ball, get stuck in the trees, in a cactus, in high fescue, etc. within that 65 yard width between hazards. And the vast majority of the fairways they're hitting into are much skinnier than 40 yards. These guys aren't playing muni courses.  And that's why when you go watch D1 college and pro events, they largely ignore that 65 yard "rule" and use irons and less than driver woods all the time.  Fawcett does have his strengths, but situational awareness is not one of them. 

If the surroundings of the fairway are high fescue or trees where you won't be able to find a ball or advance a ball well, I just treat it as a "functional hazard". Don't quote me on this but I believe Fawcett has said something similar in the past.

 

Also, most times if a hole is super tight, it is also short enough that you can get a wedge in your hand with less than driver.

 

I can't say I've played a course where the Driving Decision Tree hasn't led me to improve my decision-making off the tee. There's the occasional time in a practice round where something ends up being more penal than you first thought and you make the adjustment I laid out in the first 2 sentences.

 

I find overall that Decade has gotten me to hit slightly LESS drivers than I did before. 

[MrFlipper]

On 6/29/2024 at 11:18 PM, Nels55 said:

I would say that the focus band method takes away the anxiety over the difficult shots that you can't see as you don't have to decide on anything.  Balbi told me that when he stood behind the ball and asked 'what would a good shot look like here' he would sometimes get a picture of a draw or a fade and other times nothing.  He didn't care either way as he was not trying to control the shot.  I know that a lot of folks don't believe in that sort of thing but it works for some and Balbi said that it was hard for him to shoot over par doing that stuff. 

Any further comments from anyone on the focus band method? The thought process, or lack thereof, that triggers the state?

 

At times in my life I could enter that state but could not produce it on demand (seeming to me to be a zen type state). Often it was accompanied by an out of body experience where I saw myself performing and could talk to myself as I heard myself talking to others. Not just golf but public speaking, important life events, etc. I generally had to have a decent level of skill in the activity or I couldn't generate that state, at least in sports.

 

As I've gotten older, it happens less often and for shorter duration. Whatever subconscious triggering I had of the effect has been lost to a larger degree. Pushing 70 may have something to do with that. Had an episode recently though, so it still can happen. 

 

Thoughts? Suggestions? I know some folks consider this mumbo jumbo, but I'm dead serious. 

[jdoylesan]

10 hours ago, b.mattay said:

If the surroundings of the fairway are high fescue or trees where you won't be able to find a ball or advance a ball well, I just treat it as a "functional hazard". Don't quote me on this but I believe Fawcett has said something similar in the past.

 

Also, most times if a hole is super tight, it is also short enough that you can get a wedge in your hand with less than driver.

 

I can't say I've played a course where the Driving Decision Tree hasn't led me to improve my decision-making off the tee. There's the occasional time in a practice round where something ends up being more penal than you first thought and you make the adjustment I laid out in the first 2 sentences.

 

I find overall that Decade has gotten me to hit slightly LESS drivers than I did before. 

Yea, I've had the Decade app in the past and have also had several discussions directly with Fawcett on social media. I don't recall him or the app ever mentioning functional hazards (or defining them) regarding tee shots. The Decade driver decision tree (attached) starts with:  "Are there 65 yards or more between Penalty Stroke hazards?"  In my example, a miss in the fescue, or the desert, or the trees may or may not lead to a penalty or recovery stroke (my def. of functional hazard) stroke. May have zero negative effect on the second shot. Or, it may be a lost ball.  He skirts the issue a bit with his "does the fairway pinch in to less than 40 yards in your landing area," and then implies everything outside of that is a "hazard" and yet later on he basically says "send it."   I've seen nothing in his app that actually addresses functional hazards for tee shots.  But talking to him, he'll try to make you think you're an idiot if you take less than driver on those holes.  And like I said before, in college tourneys these types of holes are the norm, not the exception.  I get 100% how someone could play worse after using his system. 

[RichieHunt]

14 hours ago, b.mattay said:

I LOVE this approach to putting. When buddies ask me about lag putting, I tell them that outside of 10-15 feet, I just keep adjusting my read higher and higher until I hit the point where I feel like the putt will never be low! Anecdotally, this approach, along with the Fawcett 4 Coin Drill, has dropped my three putts/round from 1.0-1.1 4 years ago to between 0.1-0.2 the last 3 years.

 

Correct.  THIS is what lag putting should be about.

 

 

 

 

RH

[b.mattay]

On 11/24/2024 at 9:41 AM, jdoylesan said:

Yea, I've had the Decade app in the past and have also had several discussions directly with Fawcett on social media. I don't recall him or the app ever mentioning functional hazards (or defining them) regarding tee shots. The Decade driver decision tree (attached) starts with:  "Are there 65 yards or more between Penalty Stroke hazards?"  In my example, a miss in the fescue, or the desert, or the trees may or may not lead to a penalty or recovery stroke (my def. of functional hazard) stroke. May have zero negative effect on the second shot. Or, it may be a lost ball.  He skirts the issue a bit with his "does the fairway pinch in to less than 40 yards in your landing area," and then implies everything outside of that is a "hazard" and yet later on he basically says "send it."   I've seen nothing in his app that actually addresses functional hazards for tee shots.  But talking to him, he'll try to make you think you're an idiot if you take less than driver on those holes.  And like I said before, in college tourneys these types of holes are the norm, not the exception.  I get 100% how someone could play worse after using his system. 

Maybe he didn't say it, but it makes sense to play these areas with a high% of lost balls/"non-advanceable lies" as a hazard. It is just the logical thing to do IMO.

Most times, holes with these features will be short and you can club significantly down to a hybrid etc. 

 

If it is just a narrow fairway with normal trees or rough, I think it makes sense to hit driver as often as possible.

My home course has almost every single hole in the bottom left of that decision tree. It's tree-lined and the widest fairway is 34 yards. 

[bladehunter]

2 minutes ago, b.mattay said:

Maybe he didn't say it, but it makes sense to play these areas with a high% of lost balls/"non-advanceable lies" as a hazard. It is just the logical thing to do IMO.

Most times, holes with these features will be short and you can club significantly down to a hybrid etc. 

 

If it is just a narrow fairway with normal trees or rough, I think it makes sense to hit driver as often as possible.

My home course has almost every single hole in the bottom left of that decision tree. It's tree-lined and the widest fairway is 34 yards. 

My home course is similar. Which is why it made no difference to me. Then you listen to Scott and he makes it seem like you should be hitting more drivers.  Which is conflicting info.  I mean -  You can hit driver All you want IF you can cover the double bogeys 🤣. I prefer to lay back to a wedge-7 iron and have birdie looks.  

[b.mattay]

4 hours ago, bladehunter said:

My home course is similar. Which is why it made no difference to me. Then you listen to Scott and he makes it seem like you should be hitting more drivers.  Which is conflicting info.  I mean -  You can hit driver All you want IF you can cover the double bogeys 🤣. I prefer to lay back to a wedge-7 iron and have birdie looks.  

At my home course, I actually hit about 1.5 driver less per round using Decade principles. Used to hit 12 per round, now about 10.5. The difference is I hit driver on certain holes I didn’t used to and lay back on others I didn’t use to. Targets have also changed, meaning less balls in significant trouble. Double bogeys have dropped to approximately 0.15/round 

[RCGA]

Two year member of Decade Elite. I've since quit and can't stand listening to SF talk anymore.  

 

The only good thing I got out of it was idea of a shotgun-blast-dispersion and the putting speed ladder drill. 

 

What messed me up was:

• The notion that "putting is mostly luck" that made me an apathetic putter.
• Decade math while not spending any time on a simulator learning my own dispersion patterns. There shouldn't be any math involved at all, especially at the elite level.  Dispersion should be pre-calculated with each club based on shot type. Saying aim 8y left/right from 150y is going off nothing but vibes. If you are or want to be elite, then you're going to need to spend a couple days on a launch monitor mapping out your dispersion while hitting draws, fades, high, low, etc. 
• Strokes gained, but lacks any context for weather conditions and other factors. I remember first getting Decade and couldn't wait to enter my data after a big tournament. It was blowing 50-60km/h all weekend. But like what's strokes gained going to tell me when I'm hitting a PW from 185y out, but also hitting 4i from 160y out and having it apex in the sky and start falling backwards? Or when I'm aiming a fairway over to play a cross wind? How to I get accurate strokes gained data when I play early morning golf and need a couple holes before I'm even swinging at 80%. 

Edited March 25 by RCGA

[Obee]

On 6/25/2024 at 7:06 AM, SNIPERBBB said:

The short-sided boogieman is definitely overblown.  Short-sided with the green sloping away from you or into a deep bunker is obviously bad. Short sided to a flat or up-slope green is very easy and makeable chips.

Amen to this. I actually teach guys this. It's amazing how many otherwise very good amateur players don't understand this. I sometimes AIM to the shot side as my PREFERRED miss with wedges on certain green set-ups to certain pins. And there are more of these pins than people realize -- they aren't just statistical aberrations. There can sometimes be two or three in a single round.

[Obee]

20 minutes ago, RCGA said:

Two year member of Decade Elite. I've since quit and can't stand listening to SF talk anymore.  

 

The only good thing I got out of it was idea of a shotgun-blast-dispersion and the putting speed ladder drill. 

 

What messed me up was:

• The notion that "putting is mostly luck" that made me an apathetic putter.
• Decade math while not spending any time on a simulator learning my own dispersion patterns. There shouldn't be any math involved at all, especially at the elite level.  Dispersion should be pre-calculated with each club based on shot type. Saying aim 8y left/right from 150y is going off nothing but vibes. If you are or want to be elite, then you're going to need to spend a couple days on a launch monitor mapping out your dispersion while hitting draws, fades, high, low, etc. 
• Strokes gained, but lacks any context for weather conditions and other factors. I remember first getting Decade and couldn't wait to enter my data after a big tournament. It was blowing 50-60km/h all weekend. But like what's strokes gained going to tell me when I'm hitting a PW from 185y out, but also hitting 4i from 160y out and having it apex in the sky and start falling backwards? Or when I'm aiming a fairway over to play a cross wind? How to I get accurate strokes gained data when I play early morning golf and need a couple holes before I'm even swinging at 80%. 

Thank you for this.

SF is ... not for everyone. I can't stand the way the guy communicates either and we're not at all alone.

[iacas]

52 minutes ago, Obee said:

Amen to this. I actually teach guys this. It's amazing how many otherwise very good amateur players don't understand this. I sometimes AIM to the shot side as my PREFERRED miss with wedges on certain green set-ups to certain pins. And there are more of these pins than people realize -- they aren't just statistical aberrations. There can sometimes be two or three in a single round.

 

Yeah, I've been sharing that with people for a decade plus… particularly on the course conditions amateurs often see. The rough isn't that thick, the greens aren't that fast.

[LongNwrong27]

1 hour ago, RCGA said:

Two year member of Decade Elite. I've since quit and can't stand listening to SF talk anymore.  

 

The only good thing I got out of it was idea of a shotgun-blast-dispersion and the putting speed ladder drill. 

 

What messed me up was:

• The notion that "putting is mostly luck" that made me an apathetic putter.
• Decade math while not spending any time on a simulator learning my own dispersion patterns. There shouldn't be any math involved at all, especially at the elite level.  Dispersion should be pre-calculated with each club based on shot type. Saying aim 8y left/right from 150y is going off nothing but vibes. If you are or want to be elite, then you're going to need to spend a couple days on a launch monitor mapping out your dispersion while hitting draws, fades, high, low, etc. 
• Strokes gained, but lacks any context for weather conditions and other factors. I remember first getting Decade and couldn't wait to enter my data after a big tournament. It was blowing 50-60km/h all weekend. But like what's strokes gained going to tell me when I'm hitting a PW from 185y out, but also hitting 4i from 160y out and having it apex in the sky and start falling backwards? Or when I'm aiming a fairway over to play a cross wind? How to I get accurate strokes gained data when I play early morning golf and need a couple holes before I'm even swinging at 80%. 

If there is that much wind I’d disregard the round. That’s a multiple std dev from norm weather condition so all the data is prob gonna be wonky including putting possibly. 
 

agree about the putting being luck sentiment. While you can’t obviously expect to make a lot from 30 feet you basically should be still trying to and that will give you the closest 2nd putt distance in general. 
 

there is def a lot of nuance and times to situationally apply the concepts instead of just kinda blanket going by them