Top 5 Worst Golf Tips Of All Time.

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you also read Tom McEvoy poker books instead of Sklansky for the same reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm new to poker and don't know who Tom McEvoy is. I wouldn't engage in a similar debate regarding poker, I don't have the knowledge or experience. (My apologies for poker content in OOT)

I've been playing golf for over 30 years, and though I've never played a major tour, I've played at every other competive level, and I've taught golf. I have knowledge and experience on this subject. One of the great things about the game is that there are many approaches. Mine isn't correct for everyone, but it is correct for me. I believe that the type of approach that Pelz uses, sets most golfers back. Most will not realize though, simply because it is just an extreme example of what has been the predominate theory in golf teaching for many decades, "focus on mechanics". I believe that how you think about the shot is much more important than how/what you think about your swing or the execution of your swing. Unfortunatley, there is much less money to be made teaching that.

[eric5148]

I made the McEvoy/Sklansky book reference because Tom McEvoy has won the WSOP and has written several books. Sklansky rarely plays large tournaments and is not well known by the casual poker viewer, and has also written several books about poker.

The interesting thing is, Sklansky's books contain much better advice. Playing a game well and teaching it well are entirely different. Personally, I would rather learn any game from a great teacher as opposed to a great player. It's the great players who usually have styles that only work for them, then they try to tell everyone else to play like them. While teachers tend to teach more fundamentally and theoretically correct ideas that work for the majority.

So getting back to golf, Pelz is the Sklansky of golf, and Venturi is the McEvoy of golf. I'm much more willing to listen to a Pelz than a Venturi.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the type of approach that Pelz uses, sets most golfers back. Most will not realize though, simply because it is just an extreme example of what has been the predominate theory in golf teaching for many decades, "focus on mechanics".

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said before, even if you don't follow his swing techniques, you would be foolish not to read his other research and ideas about the realities of how people play the game.

[decigam]

5.) Hitting a 220 yard 3 wood when you are 250 out is not a lay up. A lay up is hitting a club that will not go the max possible distance for some special reason. This can be hazards around the green or maybe just a choice to hit a higher percentage shot.

It totally depends on the person and the upcoming shot itno the green. Pin position, firmness of the green, wind conditions, hazards around the green (and layup area). Its all about finding the most +ev play. Even though the tree wood might sometimes be the correct play, it isn't always.

4.) Depends how good you are. (I'm a +2 and sometimes use this)

3.) This works, I use it, it helps me. It IS NOT inffalible, and is just one moretool that you can use to make your decision. It does not account for small undulations within your line or grain (obviously), or the magnitude of the break, but it certainly gives you a good GENERAL idea.

2.) I agree that the comments on weight tranfer are wrong, but for a differetn reason. Wieght transfer is a consequence of a good swing and not something that creates a good swing. Your weight goes right because that is where your arms (and part of your torso) are and then goes left for the same reasons.

There is no such thing as a good player who does not transfer his wieght properly.

1.) Keeping the putter close to the ground is not to be taken literaly. It is a great tip as long as you are smart enough to interpret it correclty. It just means that you should NOT lift the putter TOO FAR off the ground (this probalby means you are too handsy or to stiff).

This thread could have been great snce I rarely see good advice from golf magazines (basically because they are preached as if they could apply to all players), but you were only right on number 2. However, 2 is the one where golf magazines or poor golf instructors are the most wrong about.

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said before, even if you don't follow his swing techniques, you would be foolish not to read his other research and ideas about the realities of how people play the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, focus on the theoretical and mechanical aspect of THE game, destroys MY game. By nature, I think too much, any additional thought is crippling. Golf tends to attract ambitious people that need challenge, and most of them fall into the same categorie that I mentioned. I've long believed that a lobotomy would do more to fix most golf games than 1000's of hours of instruction. You seem to like to read, Have you read "Golf is Not A Game of Perfect" by Dr. bob Rotella?

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a +2

[/ QUOTE ]

My game has sucked lately, I've dropped from +2 to +0.5. I've been too focused on mechanics, enjoying this debate though.

[JTrout]

[ QUOTE ]
I've long believed that a lobotomy would do more to fix most golf games than 1000's of hours of instruction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made this argument in a thread a couple of years ago.
Sklansky strongly disagreed.
I think I said something like, "many golfers would be better if their IQ were 10 pts. lower."
He implied I didn't have 10 to spare! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Dominic]

where is your avatar from??? that's one big hit

[shemp]

Your experiment to validate #5 is flawed. You don't get 100 shots from the closer distance when you play, you are forced to create. If you have a specific yardage which you are quite comfortable with from repetition on the range, it may make sense to put it there and make the swing you've honed, rather than advance the ball as far as possible to, say, a half wedge from a tight lie, etc., which feels a bit different every time you look at.

I and anybody else with a dozen chances from close up will quickly find the range and put together a nice shot group, but that doesn't discount the course and game management idea that is being suggested.

I didn't finish your post, but that's what I think about that.

[groo]

[ QUOTE ]
I made this argument in a thread a couple of years ago.
Sklansky strongly disagreed.
I think I said something like, "many golfers would be better if their IQ were 10 pts. lower."
He implied I didn't have 10 to spare!

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

I would disagree with you also, 10 points isn't enough, in most cases, to make a difference.

When I make that arguement, I'm not stating that golfers would be better off with less intelligence. I'm stating that a vast majority of golfers (over 95%) not only think too much on the course, but they think about the wrong things. Almost all of that more than 95%, would lose some ability if they were no longer able to think, but they would gain more through their new ability to get out of their own stinking way.

On the other hand, many of the tour players I know aren't all that bright, so maybe it is an intelligence issue.

[mmbt0ne]

All I know is that last time I played I had at least 5 shots from 100 yards (I mean AT the 100 yard marker) and couldn't hit a good shot on any of them. It pissed me off to no end. I normally hit a SW ~135, and don't have a lob wedge. Needless to say, whether it was just a horrible day, or what, I don't know. But it frustrated the hell out of me.