Approach strategy in speedgolf

Get the ball as close to the flag as possible.

Yes. The closer I hit it, the fewer strokes I should need.

Speedgolf score equals golf strokes plus run time plus golf time.

So:

Because one stroke is worth one minute, I can express everything in seconds:

Not exactly. The objective is to minimize expected SGS.

Yes. One might be on the green and the other in rough or a bunker. They could require different expected numbers of strokes and different amounts of golf time.

At the flag.

Because the flag is the destination. A shot close to it produces a shorter putt.

No. Even if I aim there, my shots form a dispersion pattern around the target.

No. There might be a bunker on one side, rough behind the green, or an open fairway area short.

No. I should consider the expected value of the entire shot pattern.

Something like:

I should choose the target that produces the lowest expected SGS across all likely outcomes.

Whether the expected benefit of occasionally hitting it close outweighs the increased probability of missing the green or entering the bunker.

Because a short miss does not add running distance. I run to the ball, hit the next shot, and continue toward the hole.

A long miss means I run past the hole and then come back.

A seven-minute mile is 420 seconds over 1,760 yards. Because each yard long adds two yards of running:

So each yard long costs about half a second, before accounting for turning, accelerating, or decelerating.

The geometric costs are:

In practice, those misses might cost about five to six seconds and eight to ten seconds, respectively.

Approximately zero. I am still progressing toward the hole. But that does not make the short miss automatically better: the 10-yard long miss costs only about five or six seconds in running, so I still need to compare the golf value of the two resulting positions.

The difference is:

In SGS seconds:

So the putt is about eleven seconds better in expected golf score.

Yes. I arrive near the green with my wedge in hand, hit the pitch, and then switch to the putter. That switch costs about three to five seconds.

Approximately:

So the 60-foot putt is about:

than the 20-yard fairway pitch.

No. It may add no running distance, but it can still cost expected strokes and golf time.

The stroke difference is:

Converted to seconds:

Then I add three to five seconds for switching from wedge to putter:

So the rough pitch costs about:

than the 60-foot putt.

First, the expected-stroke difference:

Then add three to five seconds to switch to the putter and fifteen seconds for the rake:

So the bunker outcome costs approximately:

than the 60-foot putt.

From best to worst:

1. 60-foot putt
2. 20-yard pitch from fairway or closely mown grass
3. 20-yard pitch from rough
4. 20-yard bunker shot

Yes. Distance from the flag is only one variable. Surface, lie, expected strokes, club switching, and maintenance time matter too.

The fairway pitch costs about fourteen to sixteen seconds relative to the putt.

So accepting a five- or six-second long-running penalty may be much better than leaving a 20-yard pitch.

Then it could cost twenty-six to twenty-eight seconds relative to the long putt. That makes avoiding a small long miss even less important.

It ignores whether the ball finishes on the putting surface.

A short miss may save several seconds of running, but leaving the green can cost more in expected strokes and club-transition time.

I should prefer the front portion of the green when the golf consequences are otherwise similar, because long misses create backtracking. But I should not deliberately leave the ball short of the green merely to avoid a modest chance of going long.

How often does the decision arise?

A quarter stroke is:

Then:

That is two full minutes, or two SGS strokes.

Yes. Rules of thumb matter precisely because they are repeated. A fifteen-second mistake made once is modest. The same mistake made eight times costs two minutes.

More clubs create smaller yardage gaps. That should make it easier to hit the ball close to the desired distance.

Yes. It adds weight and can slow the running pace. It also crowds the carrying device and can add handling time when selecting, replacing, or organizing clubs.

It must save:

That is equivalent to:

to:

So the extra club must improve expected golf performance by roughly three-quarters of a stroke to one and a half strokes per round.

No. I would need to estimate how often the additional club actually changes the outcome.

I should map the course’s likely approach distances and ask:

• How many shots are meaningfully improved by the 6-iron or 9-iron?
• Would the 7-iron have produced an acceptable shot anyway?
• Does the extra club reduce misses off the green, especially into rough or bunkers?
• How often does it turn a pitch into a putt?
• Does it reduce expected strokes enough to offset its running and handling penalty?

No. Speedgolfers often have only one or two realistic approach clubs. I should consider the useful distance range of each club, including choked-down swings, partial swings, trajectory control, and performance under fatigue.

A shot that is technically possible on the range may not be reliable at a high heart rate. A perfectly calibrated partial shot is less valuable if it becomes unpredictable during a round.

It might. But I should compare the entire outcome distributions.

The full wedge may produce tighter dispersion and fewer catastrophic misses. The choked-down 7-iron might have a wider distance pattern or be more likely to go long.

No. It only means the wedge may produce the lower expected SGS distribution.

Club choice and outcome value are related, but they are not the same question.

Target A creates more close putts, but it also creates more rough and bunker outcomes.

Target B produces fewer very close shots but far more putts and fewer expensive misses.

I would need exact expected-stroke values to calculate it precisely, but Target B may have lower expected SGS because it keeps more of the shot pattern on the green and reduces the expensive tail.

The small number of outcomes that cost far more than an ordinary miss—bunkers, thick rough, penalty areas, short-sided pitches, or shots requiring unusual recovery time.

No. It depends on the shape of the green, flag location, hazards, my shot dispersion, and my available club.

But the correct target is often farther from the flag than instinct suggests.

It strengthens the case for a short-biased target.

A front-green result leaves an uphill putt. A slight short miss may leave an uphill pitch from fairway. A long miss may require backtracking and leave a downhill shot from rough.

No. The primary goal should still be to get the ordinary dispersion onto the green.

The target and club can bias the pattern toward the front portion of the green without centering the pattern short of the green.

It may reverse. Missing long could be better than missing short because the golf and maintenance cost of the bunker could easily outweigh a few seconds of backtracking.

No. “Short” is only good when the resulting state has lower expected SGS.

No. It is still an approach shot. I should evaluate the entire shot distribution, the likelihood of hitting the green, the likely misses, and the expected SGS from each outcome.

Because I begin from rest at the tee, the club choice can determine whether I reach the green at all. If I choose a club that frequently finishes well short, I may create a pitch and a later club switch on a large percentage of the holes.

That creates perhaps five or six seconds of running penalty, but it may still be better if it turns many 20-yard pitches into long putts.

Subject to the exact slope and lie, I would rank them approximately:

1. Ball on the green, 15-foot putt
2. Ball on the green, 40-foot putt
3. Ball on the green, 60-foot putt
4. Ball 5 yards long in open fairway
5. Ball 20 yards short in closely mown fairway
6. Ball 20 yards short in rough
7. Ball 10 yards long in thick rough
8. Ball 20 yards short in a bunker
9. Ball short-sided in a bunker

The exact order of the middle outcomes could change. For example, a simple 5-yard fairway chip might be better than a 60-foot putt, and a difficult green could change the putting values.

But the main lesson is that a small long miss in a good lie can easily be preferable to a much farther short miss, and any on-green result is often better than an equal-distance off-green result.

Because direction alone does not determine value.

I must account for:

• Expected strokes to hole out
• Whether the ball is on the green
• Lie and slope
• Hazards
• Club-switching time
• Bunker-maintenance time
• Extra running from backtracking

I am not merely trying to hit the ball as close to the flag as possible.

I am trying to choose a club and target that minimize expected SGS across my whole shot pattern.

That usually means giving substantial value to hitting the green, even if the resulting putt is long. A 60-foot putt can be around fifteen seconds better than an equal-distance fairway pitch, nearly thirty seconds better than a rough pitch, and close to forty seconds better than a bunker shot once the rake and club switch are included.

I should allow the architecture of the hole to shape my target. When the front and back are otherwise similar, I should favor the front portion of the green because long misses create backtracking. But I should not deliberately leave the ball short of the green merely to avoid a small chance of going long.

I also should not assume that more clubs automatically improve my score. An extra club must save enough expected golf strokes, repeatedly across the round, to offset its running and handling cost.

In plain English: get the ordinary shot pattern onto the safest useful part of the green, avoid the expensive misses, and judge small advantages by how often they repeat over the round.