It’s a pretty big debate in the golf industry.
Should we curve shots into our target? Or is it ok to try and hit straight at it?
Almost all golfers fall in the camp of “you should shape your shot” and “never try to hit a straight ball”.
More extreme variants of this have been “make sure EVERY shot shapes your intended way”. E.g. if you’re trying to draw it in, make sure every ball at least has some left curve to it.
I’m going to blow that apart. If you believe you have to intentionally curve the ball to play good golf, prepare for some serious cognitive dissonance.
The Scenario
Here we have a pretty straight-forward scenario, to make things easier.
Pin middle of the green, no big trouble either side.
Our target in this scenario will be the pin.
The question is, should we shape it into that target, or should we try to hit the straight ball at it?
Before We Find Out
If you want to improve your game, get my Ebook “Golf Hacks” absolutely free right here.
Learn how to fix
- Shanks/toe shots
- left/right misses
- left/right curves
- fat/thin shots
and much more. Just drop your email in the box below (if you don’t see it, open this page in an incognito browser).
Player A – the shaper
Imagine we have a shaper. They are going to try and draw the shot into their target.
Their path is 6 degrees right (in to out) of their target and their face needs to be 3 degrees right of the target to produce their desired draw.
Producing this shot.
However, we are humans. We never present the face exactly as we want. So let’s imagine we hit 5 shots with a 4 degree face window.
Face angles of +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 degrees
Now, the shot pattern looks like this
One perfect draw onto the target, a few under-draws and a few over-draws.
Player B – the straight ball
Imagine player B tries to hit a dead straight shot towards their target.
To do this, they would need to hit an exact 0 path and 0 face angle.
Producing a shot like this
But, just like with the shaper, we never present the face exactly as we want. So let’s simulate a wider mix of face angles. To keep it fair, we will go with a 4 degree face window too.
Face angles of -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 degrees.
Now the shot pattern looks like this
One dead straight shot, and a couple of pull/draws, and a couple of push/fades.
The Comparison
Note how the dispersions are the same size, and the shots are the same distance from the flag.
All that has changed is the shape the ball took to get there.
The message –
The dispersion size is a product of the face variance around the path.
If the face window is the same, the dispersion will be the same.
But Will Dispersion Be The Same?
It will vary from player to player.
Some players will produce tighter dispersions when shaping it intentionally.
Some will produce tighter dispersions with a more neutral path, attempting the straighter shot.
And some players will perform better at other points on the spectrum (which we will see later).
I’m one of the people who perform better when more neutral.
Straight Is Impossible
I hear people say this all the time –
“hitting a straight shot is impossible, so you should try to curve it”.
While it’s true that a straight shot that launches on-line with no curvature is almost 0% chance, this is irrelevant.
You’re just as unlikely to hit that exact 10-yard draw you’re shooting for.
What matters is which shot type (intention) produces the best dispersion for you.
One Way Miss
Shouldn’t we try to curve it one way, in order to avoid the two-way miss?
Well, look again at the dispersions.
- both produced a 2-way miss relative to the target. Even when shaping, sometimes we under-do it, and sometimes we over-do it. You don’t get rid of a two-way miss by shaping it
- the shaper curved every single shot one-way, yet they didn’t score better. So even though the straight-shooter had a mix of curves, they still performed the same. Face window size around the path is more important than whether you curved one-way or had a 50/50 mix.
Bigger Margin For Error?
Lots of people claim that curving it gives a bigger margin for error.
There is no reason why this is true. Both paths offer us (in this example) a 4 degree window of error in order to hit the green. The shaped shot doesn’t magically improve/increase that margin.
But Pros Shape It
Sure, lots try to. And that’s fine.
But it’s not necessary for great golf. You also had guys like Moe Norman who were notorious for hitting lasers onto their target.
Pros also shape it a lot less than amateurs, as this ping chart shows.
Source – Demand to curve it less –
Regardless, I’m less concerned with what X pro does, and more concerned with what improves performance for a given individual. It’s a logical fallacy to say “pros do X, therefore they’re right” – classified as an “appeal to authority” fallacy.
We’re All On A Spectrum
Very few people are true drawers or faders.
If you hit 100 shots, some will have a left curve, some will have a right curve.
The ratio of those would define whether you are more of a shaper, or closer to a straight shooter.
The Big Issue
I’m recently seeing a lot of players who are concerned when they’re not on an extreme end of the spectrum.
For example, if someone comes in and they’re hitting a draw shot 65% of the time, but 35% of the time they’re having these slight push-fades, they panic that they’re “missing both ways”.
Look – if their dispersion size is tight with that 2-way curve/miss, and it gets larger when they try to get a greater percentage of draw shots, then they’re seeking the wrong thing.
If your pattern is the left side – tight but with a 60% draw (40% push/push fade), why would you want to change to the second pattern – 100% draw/one-way curve but a wider pattern? I see this issue a lot with people chasing the one-way curve.
I’ve then seen many of those players get gradually more whacky off-line paths over time as they seek a “one-way curve”. And this can cause more issues than just directional dispersion.
When a path and swing direction get too far off-line, it can be hard to strike the ball effectively, or create good spin-loft.
I’ve also been in lessons where we get the path more neutral and the player starts getting more towards the middle of the spectrum. Then they ask “shouldn’t I be trying to curve every shot the same way”.
This article is nice education as to why that is not important, and a myth that needs to die.
Bottom line – sometimes, working more towards neutral can be the best option for the player
It’s Easier To Feel A Shot Shape
Ah, the intangibles argument.
Even if this is true, who cares.
If trying to play a shape and being able to “feel it” better matters, then that would manifest itself in a tighter shot pattern.
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t.
For example, in my own game, I play closer to neutral. I have no idea when I swing a club whether that shot is going to fall right or left of my target, but it doesn’t matter! What matters is my shot pattern is tighter when I shoot for neutral.
I can, in an instant, play a predominant fade or draw pattern. And sure, this is such an extreme swing I can really feel it. But my dispersion size is wider – so why on earth would I play that???
Straighter May Be Better
To be clear – my position is not that everyone should shoot for neutral.
I have some players who perform better (tighter dispersions) as a drawer – others as a fader. And many who are closer to neutral and have a mix of spin axes to their shot patterns.
However, being more neutral can hold other benefits
- players will have more consistent outcomes from club to club, when spin lofts change and distance to target changes
- players will have more consistent outcomes when the wind changes from into to down-wind
- players will have more consistent outcomes on fat/thin shots, or when debris is trapped between the face and ball
- Many players can get a better low point and spin lofts when being closer to neutral with the path/swing direction
So there is a pretty decent call for working more towards neutral.
What Is Best?
Ultimately, the intention that produces the tightest dispersion pattern for you is best.
In this example, our 60% left curve (more neutral) is the clear winner.
Then, we simply overlay that onto our target.
What About Tucked Pins?
“But, Adam – we’re not always hitting to a pin in the middle of the green. What if the pin is on the left side? Isn’t a draw better there”?
Nope.
You simply change the target and hit your desired shot towards that -whether drawing it in, fading it in, or aiming for a neutral shot.
Whichever shot intention gives you the tightest dispersions – overlay that pattern onto a good target.
What About The Big Misses?
In order to have a big miss, within your shot pattern (whether 1% of the time, 5% of the time or more) you’d have to have a super off-line face presentation in there.
There is no reason why a more neutral path would increase the likelihood of this.
Or, to put it another way, there is no reason why shaping it more (having a less neutral path) would decrease the number of big off-line face presentations.
This is not only pure logic, but data from my lessons supports it too. If anything, I see more big-misses from players with more off-line paths.
Let’s simulate it for a moment.
Let’s take our previous dispersions and add a bigger face error to each. We will throw face presentations that are 1 degrees more right and left of the previous worst.
You see that if you add another face error either side of the previous, both the shaper and the neutral player have the same big miss either side (yellow highlights)
The shaper throws in
The neutral player throws in
- a bigger pull-hook
- a bigger push slice
But the dispersion size stays the same, showing no advantage for the shaper in reducing big misses.
But the shaper/drawer won’t have the big right miss
That’s a mighty big assumption.
What you’re essentially saying is that the shaper will have a tighter face presentation window. I see no reason for this to be true, and my experience teaching tens of thousands of lessons (with constant data collection) does not support this.
And if it is true, on an individual level, then it will manifest itself in a tighter dispersion pattern. If shaping it happens to be the best option for you, then go for it.
What To Do
Ultimately, we can test and find out what’s better for us.
If you have the ability to shape it both ways, you can test each shape, including something in between that’s more neutral.
And if you don’t, I can teach you how (in The Accuracy Plan).
What we care about is not the percentage of shots that curve “one-way”….
The important thing is the outcome dispersion
And I actually have a way of testing and finding this out that doesn’t require the use of a launch monitor, and can be done on a range and/or course for more relevant data collection.
If you want to learn about this way of testing, as well as ways to improve your dispersion size, check out The Accuracy Plan.
CLICK THE BANNER BELOW TO LEARN MORE
My Position
- Shaping is ok, but so is going for a more neutral shot that has a greater mix of accidental left/right curves
- What matters most is the outcome dispersion
- This can be tested for, to see which one you perform better with
- Some players play better more neutral, and others with a more off-line path
- Don’t chase “one-way curve” at the expense of dispersion size
- Ultimately, face window around the path is the bigger determinant of success.
- Path simply changes the shot shape, or percentage of shots that have a left/right curve in your shot pattern
- There may be some consistency/functionality advantages to being more neutral with the path
- Even for tucked pins, we simply change the target location but hit our desired shot towards that target
- Intentionally shaping doesn’t reduce big misses. Reducing the face-presentation window does
- Test yourself and see what works best for you. Don’t know how? Use the protocol in The Accuracy Plan
Caveats and Rebuttals
There are some slight caveats to this, that may apply to less than 1% of golfers.
I’ll discuss some of these in future posts as I find them super interesting.
Have a rebuttal/question? I welcome respectful and well-meaning discussion/debate. Drop a comment below.
Improve Your Game
Check out my game-improvement area below. Start your journey to better golf with one of my online programs.
