2nd shot strategy on Par 5 you can’t reach

[Petethreeput]

1 hour ago, WesternRacing said:

LOL.  But it’s not. Trust me, I’ve hit them both a lot and practice them both a fair bit.  I’m most comfortable in the 85-105 yard range and can put that closer to the hole than I can with a 40-50 yard pitch.  If I’m not green side, I’d rather not be inside 75 yards.

 

BTW, I couldn’t count the number of times I’ve heard announcers during a PGA tournament say, ‘he’s just laying up to a comfortable yardage…’ and that yardage is in the 80-100 yard range.

 

Oh and I played nine holes today, two par fives, layed up to 110 on the first, 95 on the second.  Put both shots inside of ten feet.  And made one of the birdie putts.

 

According to Dave Pelz this hole proximity in relation to distance from the hole would put you in the elite of tour players.

 

I don’t want to say I dont believe this, but if your name isn’t Zach Johnson circa 2007, I am struggling to think this is an every shot result.

 

And that’s what this discussion is about, over time which will produce better results?

[GoGoErky]

1 minute ago, Petethreeput said:

According to Dave Pelz this hole proximity in relation to distance from the hole would put you in the elite of tour players.

 

I don’t want to say I dont believe this, but if your name isn’t Zach Johnson circa 2007, I am struggling to think this is an every shot result.

 

And that’s what this discussion is about, over time which will produce better results?

Bingo.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Cliffy2020 said:

Lou’s #1 for getting better - Improve your ball striking.

 

And if we were talking about how to improve your handicap long term and in larger amounts, we'd almost all be making that argument. As it is, you're not going to "improve your ball-striking" when you are faced with the choice of what to hit for your second shot on a par five.

 

Golfers can't even flush their putts…

 

2 hours ago, Cliffy2020 said:

We all agree, closer is better but you CANNOT discount a players ability/inability to execute said shot with said club. You want to hit the ball closer to the green with your 3W but can you do it more reliably than your 7W, hybrid or 5i?   Shots get progressively more difficult to execute as we move up in the bag and there’s a reason 3W of the deck is the least used club among Am’s.

2 hours ago, Cliffy2020 said:

Be honest with your results and you’ll quickly answer your own question which club you should be laying up with (my guess would be 5W/7W or Hybrid over 3W or 3i/4i/5i.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Cliffy2020 said:

You can throw Strokes Gained out the window in this scenario with mid handicap players.  

…

The 7i, wedge kid usually has an outside look at birdie, stress-free par, or tap in bogie.

 

Hmmm.

 

1 hour ago, WesternRacing said:

On my course, I can easily average inside 15’ from 100 yards during a round.

 

I'd take that bet as many times as you wanted to offer it.

[MonteScheinblum]

This misperception of skill level is not a golf dynamic, it’s a human dynamic.

 

I play warzone.  The average kill to death ratio for the new version for all players is .92.  For pro players it’s 2 to 4.

 

Mine is 1.15, however, early on I was playing well and would have sworn I was 2-3, having no idea what the actual numbers are.  
 

I know I’m a slightly above average player so when I ultimately saw the stats, they made sense.

 

However, I remember all the games where I had double digit kills and didn’t die once and my team won the game.  Those are outliers, as being only a slightly above average player, double digit kill games while winning are unicorns.

 

Most games I get 4 kills and die 3 times.  The unicorn game is averaged out by the games where every time I spawn, I get shot out of the air and my team dies before I can get a kill.  5 deaths and zero kills.

 

Golf is the same.  You remember the days where you stuffed a bunch of balls and believe that should be the norm.

[hardcaliber]

Hi OP here, thanks to everyone for all the useful responses. It’s seems like most people favor pushing it up as close as possible, which is kind of what I was leaning toward myself.
 

I definitely agree that every little bit closer makes the 3rd shots into the green easier. I think the statistics based approach however does run into a little bit of a ludic fallacy if you don’t somehow factor in the increasing probability of something bad happening on the 2nd shot as you move into longer clubs. I would imagine even with good players, moving up into a hybrid from an iron for example would significantly increase the odds of ending up somewhere bad. And where is the intersection where the probability of that negative outcome negates the benefit of being 40 or 50 yards closer to the green? So I would think a proper statistical analysis would need to incorporate results data from both the 2nd and 3rd shot in this scenario.

 

But as several people have suggested, bottom line I gotta get better with the long clubs to reduce the odds of disaster and tilt the equation in my favor. 

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, hardcaliber said:

So I would think a proper statistical analysis would need to incorporate results data from both the 2nd and 3rd shot in this scenario.

 

It's been done with (hundreds of) millions of shots for all levels of golfer.

[596]

I asked a pro if he lays up to a distance on par 5s he can't reach. His answer was "no".  He gets as close to the green as he can.  

 

With very rare exceptions. The closer you get, the lower your score. 

[Ross_Albatross]

9 hours ago, DaveGoodrich said:

Essentially nobody hits it closer from 100 than they do from 40, which means you are more likely to miss the green, dump it it a bunker, etc.  And the consequences of a screwed up 100 yarder are generally much worse than the consequences of a screwed up 40 yarder, because you are swinging faster.   The screwed up 40 yarder is more embarrassing though, which is likely the real reason folks avoid those shots, even though they would be closer, on average, from 40 than from 100.

100%… everybody hits it closer, on average, from 40 than 100… the anecdotal ‘good shot’ emotional bias mentioned from longer, full wedge skews the mind…

 

and it is always funny when someone comes in telling they’re deadly from 100-120 but awful from 30-40… as if we’d interpret this and think they’re Scottie with a LW in their hands - no, we see it as you’re awful from up close and surely overestimating your skills with a full wedge

Edited May 7 by DwayneGretzky

[hardcaliber]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

It's been done with (hundreds of) millions of shots for all levels of golfer.

Do you have certain literature or references you could recommend? 
 

Stuff like this is always very interesting, however I do find that sometimes even with great amounts of data to mine the analytical methodology can be a bit lacking, retrospective vs prospective analysis for example. 
 

 

[hardcaliber]

1 minute ago, DwayneGretzky said:

100%… everybody hits it closer, on average, from 40 than 100… the anecdotal ‘good shot’ emotional bias mentioned from longer, full wedge skews the mind…

 

and it is always funny when someone comes in telling they’re deadly from 100-120 but awful from 30-40… as if we’d interpret this and think they’re Scotty with a LW in their hands - no, we see it as you’re awful from up close and surely overestimating your skills with a full wedge

I agree with this 100 percent. But on the flip side there is probably some “cost” in the form of risk associated with putting yourself 30-40 yards out vs settling for 100-120 yards out. It would be interesting to see if there is any sort of data, even anecdotal. to help quantify that “cost”. 

[WesternRacing]

2 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

You can believe what you but data > feelings. Anecdotes are just that 

 

You do understand that the ‘data’ that you’re referring to is aggregated and that the underlying population of data points actually vary significantly on an individual basis, right?  And that not every data point is the same or consistent with the averages, right?

 

I can sit on our wedge practice area and hit 75-105 yard shots all day that get relatively close to the flag, because those are full swings with my 60 and 56.  The minute I start needing to back down to a half swing, I lose consistency.  I hit some really close, but I also really biff a bunch.  I’m good around the greens and good from full wedge. Not very good in between.  Not sure why that’s so hard to understand, I.e., that not everybody’s strengths and weaknesses are the same.

[GoGoErky]

5 minutes ago, hardcaliber said:

Do you have certain literature or references you could recommend? 
 

Stuff like this is always very interesting, however I do find that sometimes even with great amounts of data to mine the analytical methodology can be a bit lacking, retrospective vs prospective analysis for example. 
 

 

Strokes gained data. Been around for a decade.

 

data in the first post 

 

@iacas has a book with tons of data and breakdown called lowest score wins. 

 

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, hardcaliber said:

Do you have certain literature or references you could recommend? 

 

I mean, I literally wrote a book on it. 😄 So… yes?

 

And like I said, I've got access to millions and millions of shots worth of data. Lou has access to even more via Arccos.

[Ross_Albatross]

1 minute ago, hardcaliber said:

I agree with this 100 percent. But on the flip side there is probably some “cost” in the form of risk associated with putting yourself 30-40 yards out vs settling for 100-120 yards out. It would be interesting to see if there is any sort of data, even anecdotal. to help quantify that “cost”. 

As mentioned by others in the thread already, the cost/risk here is contextual to that particular shot, hence the ‘safely’ part in the rule… if, to get to 30-40 yds you have to carry your 2nd shot 220yds, then - for that shot - it’s probably suboptimal… but in the long run, get it closer

[Ross_Albatross]

6 minutes ago, WesternRacing said:

 

You do understand that the ‘data’ that you’re referring to is aggregated and that the underlying population of data points actually vary significantly on an individual basis, right?  And that not every data point is the same or consistent with the averages, right?

 

I can sit on our wedge practice area and hit 75-105 yard shots all day that get relatively close to the flag, because those are full swings with my 60 and 56.  The minute I start needing to back down to a half swing, I lose consistency.  I hit some really close, but I also really biff a bunch.  I’m good around the greens and good from full wedge. Not very good in between.  Not sure why that’s so hard to understand, I.e., that not everybody’s strengths and weaknesses are the same.

Genuinely curious, do you have plotted / tracked all your shots from 75-105 and from 30-40 by overall proximity (Arccos, Shot Scope, other) - or just feel, think, experience this?

[hardcaliber]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I mean, I literally wrote a book on it. 😄 So… yes?

 

And like I said, I've got access to millions and millions of shots worth of data. Lou has access to even more via Arccos.

Oh nice. Will put it on my reading list. Thanks! 

[GoGoErky]

13 hours ago, WesternRacing said:

 

You do understand that the ‘data’ that you’re referring to is aggregated and that the underlying population of data points actually vary significantly on an individual basis, right?  And that not every data point is the same or consistent with the averages, right?

 

I can sit on our wedge practice area and hit 75-105 yard shots all day that get relatively close to the flag, because those are full swings with my 60 and 56.  The minute I start needing to back down to a half swing, I lose consistency.  I hit some really close, but I also really biff a bunch.  I’m good around the greens and good from full wedge. Not very good in between.  Not sure why that’s so hard to understand, I.e., that not everybody’s strengths and weaknesses are the same.

Sitting on a practice  area where there is no pressure hitting the same shot over and over isn’t golf.

 

whats relatively close to the hole? What is the actual distance for each shot?

 

 

Edited May 7 by GoGoErky

[mshills]

@hardcaliber I don’t know your level of play or your strengths or your weaknesses, but that is actually not necessary to know. 
 

Here’s my approach. 
 

I don’t have the speed to hit 3w effectively off the turf any more, which also means I don’t have the speed to NOT hit D off every tee box either. Therefore, I don’t carry a 3w these days. 
 

A par 5 second shot should always be hit as close to the green as possible. If there is a pond there, 30 yards might not be possible. Deep woods or OB tight right or left, or monkey grass, same thing. So, I decide how close can I get without high likelihood of trouble (bunker, woods, wet, OB, etc.)

 

Let’s assume my longest club does not bring such trouble into play in this example. 

 

Then it’s all about the lie. If the lie is good and my stance is level, it’s 5w every day and twice on Sunday. If my stance is not great, it could be 7w or even 9w. If I’ve missed the fairway, then I’m looking at 7w or 9w if the lie in the rough is decent. If not, then I’m hitting 6h. But the strategy is always to advance the ball as far as possible without needing the hero-or-zero shot. 
 

Laying BACK to “yardage X” is the wrong strategy. It may not match existing biases and anecdotes (of which there are many in this thread) but facts are funny things. You will score better if you get the ball as close to the green as you can.

[Cliffy2020]

12 hours ago, hardcaliber said:

Hi OP here, thanks to everyone for all the useful responses. It’s seems like most people favor pushing it up as close as possible, which is kind of what I was leaning toward myself.
 

I definitely agree that every little bit closer makes the 3rd shots into the green easier. I think the statistics based approach however does run into a little bit of a ludic fallacy if you don’t somehow factor in the increasing probability of something bad happening on the 2nd shot as you move into longer clubs. I would imagine even with good players, moving up into a hybrid from an iron for example would significantly increase the odds of ending up somewhere bad. And where is the intersection where the probability of that negative outcome negates the benefit of being 40 or 50 yards closer to the green? So I would think a proper statistical analysis would need to incorporate results data from both the 2nd and 3rd shot in this scenario.

 

But as several people have suggested, bottom line I gotta get better with the long clubs to reduce the odds of disaster and tilt the equation in my favor. 

Here’s Scott Fawcett from Decade Golf.  I think 90% success rate may be a bit aggressive for mid handicaps but you get the point.

 

 

 

[Mike_C]

12 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

This misperception of skill level is not a golf dynamic, it’s a human dynamic.

 

I play warzone.  The average kill to death ratio for the new version for all players is .92.  For pro players it’s 2 to 4.

 

Mine is 1.15, however, early on I was playing well and would have sworn I was 2-3, having no idea what the actual numbers are.  
 

I know I’m a slightly above average player so when I ultimately saw the stats, they made sense.

 

However, I remember all the games where I had double digit kills and didn’t die once and my team won the game.  Those are outliers, as being only a slightly above average player, double digit kill games while winning are unicorns.

 

Most games I get 4 kills and die 3 times.  The unicorn game is averaged out by the games where every time I spawn, I get shot out of the air and my team dies before I can get a kill.  5 deaths and zero kills.

 

Golf is the same.  You remember the days where you stuffed a bunch of balls and believe that should be the norm.

This applies to life in general.  The Dunning–Kruger effect, "Wearing the juice".....

 

 

Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments

 

 

 

[Ty_Webb]

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2218517,-73.8903682,491m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUwMy4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D

 

That ^ is an example of a hole where it may make sense to lay up to a number. It's about 280 to the fairway bunker from the tee. 310 to clear it. I for one can't clear it (probably can't even reach it tbh unless the wind is helping). A good drive leaves you about 250-270 from the front edge of the green. That entry to the green there is tight. The yellow grass on the left is deep fescue - lost ball stuff. It's about 30 yards from that to the water. It's not really a green you can go for even if you do have the distance for it. The lay up is no picnic either. The bunkers short left are about 50-70 yards short of the green. That would be a reasonable distance to lay up to if it was safe, but it clearly isn't. 60 yard bunker shots are no picnic and the water obviously you want to avoid. Behind those two bunkers it's about 45 yards from the fescue to the water. That's really the ideal place to play to. That leaves you with about a 90-100 yard shot in. It works out to a shot that goes about 170-190. Still not easy to do, but it's doable and if you don't hit it that well, there's still a decent amount of grass you can hit it into. Leaving it short of the bigger bunker is leaving you with 130+ in and that green is narrow with the water looming. Laying up to the water completely leaves you 160 in. That's not a good spot to be in either. Especially for a mid-handicap. 

 

So I would say this is a hole to lay up to about 90-100, but it's got nothing to do with being better from 90-100 than from 40-50. It's all about advancing it as far as you can reliably do so. But it's also an example of a hole where playing too safely can backfire. Laying up to 160 leaves you with a very high tariff approach shot. Miss the green too much to the left and there's a decent chance your next shot is going for a swim anyway. 

[RoyalMustang]

13 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

This misperception of skill level is not a golf dynamic, it’s a human dynamic.

 

I play warzone.  The average kill to death ratio for the new version for all players is .92.  For pro players it’s 2 to 4.

 

Mine is 1.15, however, early on I was playing well and would have sworn I was 2-3, having no idea what the actual numbers are.  
 

I know I’m a slightly above average player so when I ultimately saw the stats, they made sense.

 

However, I remember all the games where I had double digit kills and didn’t die once and my team won the game.  Those are outliers, as being only a slightly above average player, double digit kill games while winning are unicorns.

 

Most games I get 4 kills and die 3 times.  The unicorn game is averaged out by the games where every time I spawn, I get shot out of the air and my team dies before I can get a kill.  5 deaths and zero kills.

 

Golf is the same.  You remember the days where you stuffed a bunch of balls and believe that should be the norm.

 

At least for guys! Women aren't naturally overconfident in their abilities, unlike the majority of men. 

[mshills]

19 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2218517,-73.8903682,491m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUwMy4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D

 

That ^ is an example of a hole where it may make sense to lay up to a number. It's about 280 to the fairway bunker from the tee. 310 to clear it. I for one can't clear it (probably can't even reach it tbh unless the wind is helping). A good drive leaves you about 250-270 from the front edge of the green. That entry to the green there is tight. The yellow grass on the left is deep fescue - lost ball stuff. It's about 30 yards from that to the water. It's not really a green you can go for even if you do have the distance for it. The lay up is no picnic either. The bunkers short left are about 50-70 yards short of the green. That would be a reasonable distance to lay up to if it was safe, but it clearly isn't. 60 yard bunker shots are no picnic and the water obviously you want to avoid. Behind those two bunkers it's about 45 yards from the fescue to the water. That's really the ideal place to play to. That leaves you with about a 90-100 yard shot in. It works out to a shot that goes about 170-190. Still not easy to do, but it's doable and if you don't hit it that well, there's still a decent amount of grass you can hit it into. Leaving it short of the bigger bunker is leaving you with 130+ in and that green is narrow with the water looming. Laying up to the water completely leaves you 160 in. That's not a good spot to be in either. Especially for a mid-handicap. 

 

So I would say this is a hole to lay up to about 90-100, but it's got nothing to do with being better from 90-100 than from 40-50. It's all about advancing it as far as you can reliably do so. But it's also an example of a hole where playing too safely can backfire. Laying up to 160 leaves you with a very high tariff approach shot. Miss the green too much to the left and there's a decent chance your next shot is going for a swim anyway. 

Two observations:

 

1.  That is a dang tough hole, no two ways about it. Not unfair or silly by any means, just tough!

 

2.  Your thought process is sound, and on this hole, the outcome of having a longer third shot makes good sense. 

[SNIPERBBB]

13 hours ago, hardcaliber said:

Hi OP here, thanks to everyone for all the useful responses. It’s seems like most people favor pushing it up as close as possible, which is kind of what I was leaning toward myself.
 

I definitely agree that every little bit closer makes the 3rd shots into the green easier. I think the statistics based approach however does run into a little bit of a ludic fallacy if you don’t somehow factor in the increasing probability of something bad happening on the 2nd shot as you move into longer clubs. I would imagine even with good players, moving up into a hybrid from an iron for example would significantly increase the odds of ending up somewhere bad. And where is the intersection where the probability of that negative outcome negates the benefit of being 40 or 50 yards closer to the green? So I would think a proper statistical analysis would need to incorporate results data from both the 2nd and 3rd shot in this scenario.

 

But as several people have suggested, bottom line I gotta get better with the long clubs to reduce the odds of disaster and tilt the equation in my favor. 

Can't get paralyzed by bad outcome potential. That exists for every shot on the course. 

 

What you need to look at of is the probability of bad outcomes and look at what level of probability level are you willing to accept. Is 1 in 10 too much. 3 in 10?

[Ty_Webb]

6 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Can't get paralyzed by bad outcome potential. That exists for every shot on the course. 

 

What you need to look at of is the probability of bad outcomes and look at what level of probability level are you willing to accept. Is 1 in 10 too much. 3 in 10?

 

And don't forget that the "safe" option does not eliminate the bad outcomes. It (hopefully) makes them less likely, but assuming that you'll hit the lay up shot perfectly and then the PW from there perfectly is an easy mistake to make. You need to count the bad outcomes on both sides of the equation - and also remember that the lay up bad outcome might well be worse than the go for it bad outcome since wherever you've hit it, you're still 50 yards further away from the hole.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Cliffy2020 said:

Here’s Scott Fawcett from Decade Golf.  I think 90% success rate may be a bit aggressive for mid handicaps but you get the point.

 

I think you can keep it at 90% but make it more what is acceptable for the 90%. If you're choosing a hybrid instead of the 7I you started out pitching as the solution for most mid-caps, you have to accept "thinned it to 60 yards instead of flushing it to 30" as an acceptable result. You have to accept "pulled it into the left rough or heel cut it into the right rough" as an acceptable result that's still better than being 100 yards out in the fairway (especially when plenty of times the mid-caps are going to mess up their 7I shot, too).

 

Safely only really means avoiding penalties. That includes unplayables and lost balls.

 

Those, like you, who tout the 7I/W approach often under-estimate how often the mid-cap screws up one of those two shots. Sure, if you flush your 7I and W to a +2 level and hit your hybrid like a 22… a) you should hit 7I/W all the time, and b) you likely don't exist.

[getitdaily]

17 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

This isn’t going to solve the debate, but I have a few things to add.

 

The number of golfers on earth, including every tour player, who have the correct perceptions of distances, proximity and swing dynamics without stats and modern technology is the same as Mr. Blutaski’s GPA.

 

I have brought a multitude of golfers who claim to have proximity X from distance Y, out to distance Y to hit multiple shots.  
 

Not a single one was close.  Most were in excess of 2-3 times what they thought..  
 

One in particular said he averaged a horrid 30’ from 150 and he’d like to get down to 15-20 feet.  He was about a 10 handicap.

 

I asked him what he thought the tour average was.  He said 10 feet.  When I told him it was closer to 30 feet and no one even hits it 10 feet on average from 100 yards, he actually got mad at me and said he thought I should be more educated about these things.

 

I brought up the pga tour stats and he moved the goal posts about there being more difficult conditions.  
 

Anyway, I brought him to a hole with a flat lie, middle of the fairway, no wind, pin in the middle of the green from 150 and had him hit 10 balls.  I asked him which ones he was happy with while it was still in the air.  There were 4.  Proximity to the hole on those was over 30 feet.  
 

The last thing is I have brought multiple “I like to lay up to a full wedge” people out to the course.  I had them hit 10 balls from beyond a distance they could hit the green and had them try and layup to their stock distance they want.  None have gotten more than 3 balls within 5 yards of that distance and most were more than 10 yards away.  No we’re defeating the purpose and ending up with in between yardages.

 

Then I took them to the best angle to the pin, flat lie at their exact stock yardage and had them hit 10 balls.  The dropped 10 balls within 30-40 yards on the worst angle to the pin.  No one has won this war yet.😁

 

The same holds true for swing anomalies that are like major winner X, and “I know it’s wrong, but it works for me.”

Well, it should!

[Cliffy2020]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

… the 7I you started out pitching as the solution for most mid-caps…”

 

Those, like you, who tout the 7I/W approach often under-estimate how often the mid-cap screws up one of those two shots. Sure, if you flush your 7I and W to a +2 level and hit your hybrid like a 22… a) you should hit 7I/W all the time, and b) you likely don't exist.

Ahhhhhhh - that didn’t happen. I gave a single example after directly watching one of my juniors struggle with 3W after a nice iron session in warmups and presented with the same unreachable par5 scenario as the OP I simply asked him a question about his proficiency with that club after he pulled 3W.  He went on to play 7i/W with better results than attempting to send 3W as close to green as possible.  His decision.  I think you called it anecdata.  
 

I’ll repost what my general advice was - probably and oddly the only thing you haven’t quoted me on in this thread:

 

 The Original Poster describes a stellar round blighted by two double bogeys on par 5’s stemming from errant second shots using long clubs in an attempt to get as close to the green as possible.  Should the OP adjust his club selection next time?  Yes.  (and in the meantime, work on his long(er) fairway shots on the range). Strategically, he’s still trying to “….safely remove as much distance as possible…”.  But by using a more reliable club whether it’s 5W, 7w, hybrid, 3i, 4i…..7i.  Here’s where the nuance of my addendum to The Rule “…safely and reliably remove as much distance as possible…”  comes into play.  
 

I now understand why you’ve responded the way you have.  If you have anymore misunderstandings just send me a PM.  No point in clogging up an otherwise productive thread any further.  Have a great day ✌🏽

[Ty_Webb]

21 minutes ago, Cliffy2020 said:

with better results than attempting to send 3W as close to green as possible.  

 

How do you know this? 

[GoGoErky]

3 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

How do you know this? 

Nostradamus