Distance or Accuracy

[Elvisliveson]

  ochmude said:

Originally Posted by ochmude

It sounds like some of you are assuming distance and accuracy, not distance or accuracy.  If you choose accuracy, you'd be faced with a 4 iron into the green after your short drive split the fairway.  If you picked distance, you could knock it 300+ yards every single time, but you'd be faced with a punch shot out of the trees back onto the fairway followed by ending up in a greenside bunker with your approach.

I think it's because some of us saw the title of the thread and wrongly assumed it was the age old question of in general, would you like more distance or more accuracy? After voting in the poll and then reading the OP only then did we realize it was a more specific fantasy-type scenario.

[Kieran123]

  ochmude said:

Originally Posted by ochmude

It sounds like some of you are assuming distance and accuracy, not distance or accuracy.  If you choose accuracy, you'd be faced with a 4 iron into the green after your short drive split the fairway.  If you picked distance, you could knock it 300+ yards every single time, but you'd be faced with a punch shot out of the trees back onto the fairway followed by ending up in a greenside bunker with your approach.

So basically - by choosing distance, you guarantee we will never hit fairways or greens?

[bplewis24]

Landslide yet?

[Zeph]

Assuming you will be able to fix those errors which for some reason accompany the super powers makes this whole thread even more silly. [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/image/id/150380/width/1000/height/800][IMG]http://thesandtrap.com/image/id/150380/width/1000/height/500[/IMG][/URL]

[Leftygolfer]

  Elvisliveson said:

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

BINGO. That's exactly what I was thinking. I can be accurate just about anytime I want, just by sacrificing a little distance. But if I try to crank it up, that's when the problems start. IMO, accuracy is fairly easy to develop, distance not so much.

I just don't agree with this.  Accuracy easy to devolop?   Pros don't hit it straight all the time.  They play golf for a living, been doing it since they were a kid.  If you can hit it straight all the time you are pretty much a scratch golfer with any kind of short game.  There are old old men who can't drive it over 220 but seem to figure out a way to make tons of pars, no doubes, shot a 75 on a 6300 yard course.

Maybe I'm an odd ball, but I've put on yardage in the past couple of years but my index is going nothing but up.  Accuracy is very difficult for me.

[saevel25]

I finally learned to calm down the swing. I have been driving the ball amazing now. I am probably 5-10 yards shorter, but if i catch one dead center, it goes about 5-10 yard farther. So i don't loose much, though catching it square with my overswing was definetly longer. But now i feel like i can pick a 20 by 20 yard block of turf and i can land the ball in that area with the driver. Its crazy how the confidence you have when you can do that.

The keys to my accuracy, stop taking such a long swing. All those magazine, Gaine distance by taking it back low and slow, gaining width. All they do is mess you up. The key is to keep it compact, around your center. Then you just vary how fast you rotate to gain more distance.

What also helped me was balance training in my exercises. Doing exercises on one foot, like one foot squats, or just balancing on a folded workout mat. Doing that allows me to swing harder and not loose it. I can litteraly swing out of my shoes and still finish in balance on the front foot. During the wet season, sometimes my back foot would slip in my downswing, i can finish that swing with out falling over because i can balance on my left leg.

So keys to accuracy from what i done,

Do not gain width pulling your self off the ball. If you need to, stop your shoulder turn a bit earlier and just rotate through faster.

gain better balance, allowing you to swing faster and make solid contact.

[ochmude]

  Kieran123 said:

Originally Posted by Kieran123

So basically - by choosing distance, you guarantee we will never hit fairways or greens?

No, I don't.  The scenario put forth by the OP does.  It clearly states that by selecting distance you would not retain your current level of accuracy.  Hooks and slices, which are the evil cousins of the draw and fade, would be frequent visitors to your game.  As such, your GIR and FIR numbers would suffer.

[ochmude]

  Elvisliveson said:

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

I think it's because some of us saw the title of the thread and wrongly assumed it was the age old question of in general, would you like more distance or more accuracy? After voting in the poll and then reading the OP only then did we realize it was a more specific fantasy-type scenario.

Agreed.  If the question was do you want more of one or more of the other, I'm sure the results would be different than the current question, which is do you want more of one at the expense of the other.

[bplewis24]

  Kieran123 said:

Originally Posted by Kieran123

So basically - by choosing distance, you guarantee we will never hit fairways or greens?

The specific trade-off proposed by the OP was +20 yards of distance for "some good and some bad" shots.  I would quantify that as about a 50/50 chance of hitting it straight or hitting slice/hooks...whichever your miss is.  Contrast that with -20 yards of distance, but straight shots.

Does that mean 90% chance of straight/accurate?  100%?  Even at 80%, I'd probably take accuracy.  If you extrapolate that out with a direct correlation of 50% GIR vs 80% GIR, I'll take my chances with the latter.

Brandon

[Kieran123]

  bplewis24 said:

Originally Posted by bplewis24

The specific trade-off proposed by the OP was +20 yards of distance for "some good and some bad" shots.  I would quantify that as about a 50/50 chance of hitting it straight or hitting slice/hooks...whichever your miss is.  Contrast that with -20 yards of distance, but straight shots.

Does that mean 90% chance of straight/accurate?  100%?  Even at 80%, I'd probably take accuracy.  If you extrapolate that out with a direct correlation of 50% GIR vs 80% GIR, I'll take my chances with the latter.

Brandon

Accurate to where you're aiming. What about duffed/topped shots that go straight at the target but 130 yards short?

[sean_miller]

  Kieran123 said:

Originally Posted by Kieran123

Accurate to where you're aiming. What about duffed/topped shots that go straight at the target but 130 yards short?

Then that's not very accurate. Not more accurate than thrown a dart onto the floor (or into your toe) perfectly in line with the triple-20.

[Kieran123]

  sean_miller said:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Then that's not very accurate. Not more accurate than thrown a dart onto the floor (or into your toe) perfectly in line with the triple-20.

So basically, this is kinda going one way

I could take distance and hit it 320 yards off the tee but hit only 50 % FIR and GIR, or I could take accuracy, hit 90% of greens/fairways, and lose 10-20 yards and still hit it 300 yards?

Wha?

Maybe we should even the stakes here. If I take accuracy, I lose 40 % of my power?

[Elvisliveson]

  Kieran123 said:

Originally Posted by Kieran123

So basically, this is kinda going one way

I could take distance and hit it 320 yards off the tee but hit only 50 % FIR and GIR, or I could take accuracy, hit 90% of greens/fairways, and lose 10-20 yards and still hit it 300 yards?

Wha?

Maybe we should even the stakes here. If I take accuracy, I lose 40 % of my power?

Now that makes it a much better question.

[bplewis24]

  Kieran123 said:

Originally Posted by Kieran123

Accurate to where you're aiming. What about duffed/topped shots that go straight at the target but 130 yards short?

I believe we need a judge's ruling on that one.

Brandon

[bplewis24]

  Kieran123 said:

Originally Posted by Kieran123

So basically, this is kinda going one way

I could take distance and hit it 320 yards off the tee but hit only 50 % FIR and GIR, or I could take accuracy, hit 90% of greens/fairways, and lose 10-20 yards and still hit it 300 yards?

Wha?

Maybe we should even the stakes here. If I take accuracy, I lose 40 % of my power?

Don't stop there.  We also have to assume there is some baseline level of accuracy at a specific club, and that the accuracy level diminishes with each higher club (with less loft).  So, if we're saying 100% accuracy with PW, then it goes 97% accuracy with 9 iron, etc.  That puts us at roughly 79% accuracy with a 21* 3-iron.

Otherwise, there is no penalty to the accurate player for his 40% power loss.  You may hit it 300 yards on a 400 yard par 4 and hit the fairway every other hole.  I (being the accurate guy) hit the fairway every time, but only at 180* yards.  In theory, I could hit any club that has enough yardage to reach the green with 90% accuracy, unless there is some diminishing level of accuracy with lower lofted irons/clubs.

*It's pretty clear that a 40% loss in power is tremendous.  300 yards vs 180 yards with my driver?  I guess in that situation I couldn't reach the green in 2 no matter what club I use.

Brandon

[akabilk]

I'll go with the landslide. "Drive for show, putt for dough"

  bplewis24 said:

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I predict a landslide.  I'm going accuracy.

Brandon

[akabilk]

"Drive for show and putt for dough" is the obvious response, but there could be an entrapment in the original question "Accuracy or distance" (?)

Nah, I'll go with the short game every time. It's 80% of our shots.

[GolfHippy]

I not great at distance anyway, so I always go for accuracy.