is it better to be straight than longer?

[x129]

Lets make it clearer. Three identical twins are trying to hit the ball a mile

A) Just lift weights

B) Just does technique work

C) Does technique work and correct strength work (i.e. doesn't just try to max his bench or squat).

I would put my money on C every day of the week. Does my weight lifting tell you how far I can hit it? Nope. But an increase in my strength will lead to an increase in distance assuming I am training the right muscles and that I am doing the drills to turn that added strength into power.

Originally Posted by Gioguy21

that is incorrect. you're making it a direct correlation and it's not. if this were true, any power lifter would have the attributes to be the hardest throwing pitcher, as would the longest driving golfer...(here in lies my connection to golf by example of zuback vs. sadlowski)

lifting/weightlifting do not = distance on a golf course.

[LankyLefty]

This has gotten a little crazy... I think we can all agree that someone in good shape is going to hit the ball farther then that same person out of shape.

What I take issue with is the notion that you can train swing speed. A reasonably athletic person is not going to make significant strides in swing speed by working out or doing anything really.

[Gordon McTavish]

You could always put some tape over the number "7" on your iron and write an "8" instead!

Originally Posted by 5ironkid

hey guys. i went to the driving range yesterday and realized im hitting dead straight but not very far maybe 140 with my 7 iron. is this ok? also i was wondering how i can make my iron shots go farther. right now my swing is pretty slow but i can hit it straight easily.

[trackster]

Originally Posted by Gioguy21

that is incorrect. you're making it a direct correlation and it's not. if this were true, any power lifter would have the attributes to be the hardest throwing pitcher, as would the longest driving golfer...(here in lies my connection to golf by example of zuback vs. sadlowski)

lifting/weightlifting do not = distance on a golf course.

No offense but do you have a single coherent thought on this subject? You haven't had a single response to my post that has anything to do with what I said. You said that the kid didn't lift weights and threw 95.  I said if he had lifted weights he could probably throw 100.  Just like I said that if you didn't lift weights you would not throw as hard.  Your powerlifter debate only works if every ones base throwing or hitting speed was the same, and it is not.  Sure talent has to do with it, but to say a talented person can't get better or a person with less talent can't get better is rubbish.

Saying that since weightlifters aren't the longest drivers in golf there for weightlifting does not equal distance on the golf course is ignorant.  That is like saying anorexic people don't hit the golf ball the farthest there for you should eat as much as you can to gain distance.  I was 6'1 145 pounds when I started golfing.  I'm now 6'1 170 and I hit each club about 30 yards farther then when I started.  I lift a lot for track and football.  Are you saying that I just gained this distance out of the blue and my weight training and stretching had nothing to do with it?

[bunkerputt]

Originally Posted by trackster

I don't like this debate.  If someone hits 100 yards straight every drive and I hit 250 but am off into the rough, obviously the 250 is the better play.  Length is a very important part of golf.  If it wasn't we wouldn't carry 14 different clubs for different length shots.

One thing I will say is that distance is the easy part.  If you have accuracy adding distance later isn't a problem.  How ever if you lack accuracy it is very hard to gain.

I agree that length is important to golf, but no way.  It's harder to hit it long.  I was at a crowded range yesterday and there wasn't a single other person who was hitting it over the ridge at the back of the range.  I sat and watched for about 20 minutes, but I really didn't need to because you can hear a long hitter from far away.  Everybody else was just hitting it fairly straight, though.  The ball didn't have enough zip to move that drastically left or right, even though the club path was obviously pretty far from square.  You can flip the club from the top, hold it square to the target line through impact, and hit your driver 150 yards relatively straight pretty easily, otherwise 90% of people wouldn't have done it.  Properly loading the shaft and maintaining that load until impact requires completely different mechanics and a mindset that most people don't have yet.

[GaijinGolfer]

Straighter is ALWAYS better than longer.  I'll take 230 yards in the fairway over 275 yards in the woods every time.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by TitleistWI

Straighter is ALWAYS better than longer.  I'll take 230 yards in the fairway over 275 yards in the woods every time.

Straighter is not always better than longer.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Straighter is not always better than longer.

Agreed.

[x129]

I think you are underestimating how much golf specific fitness (combo of stretching, weights, and power drills) will help the average golfer. I  am guessing for most it would be a 1-2 club length improvements. The exceptions will be ones with a good power background (i.e. you trained for hockey/baseball/ weight throws). Now maybe you don't think that is significant. Most people don't do it because they would rather spend the 3-5 hours a week golfing. I find it hard to argue with that.

Originally Posted by LankyLefty

This has gotten a little crazy... I think we can all agree that someone in good shape is going to hit the ball farther then that same person out of shape.

What I take issue with is the notion that you can train swing speed. A reasonably athletic person is not going to make significant strides in swing speed by working out or doing anything really.

[B-Con]

We have two questions: 1) How much distance for how much accuracy? 2) What skill level does this hypothetical new golfer aspire to? First, "swinging as hard as you can" means, what, a 10% (maybe 15%) increase in distance versus a slower, more controlled swing? I would agree that distance is critical to get all that you can out of your game. But I'd say it matters less the worse you are. 10% of distance means very little to someone with a HDCP of 20+, it probably won't save them but a stroke or two throughout their game. It's useful as you get to about a 15 HDCP, and I'd imagine more useful down at 10 HDCP. Finally, there's a difference between swinging hard and hitting the ball hard. Telling a beginner to swing as hard as he can will probably result in that golfer swinging hard as he can, but in the wrong way. Beginners usually start doing lots of wrong things when they hit harder; like the swing isn't hard enough to begin with. So he then has to unlearn those ways in order to learn the correct way to swing hard. For example, recently I've kept my same distance while backing off my swing by 10% -- you can't say that I was better off when I was trying harder, I wasn't even hitting it farther. I haven't read Jack's book, but is it possible he was addressing "very serious" golfers? Do we have reason to believe that his comment was aimed at the average-ish player who is perfectly happy to someday get down to a 12 or 13 HDCP? Because let's face it, that's where most golfers are content to end up, and you don't need crazy distance to get to that level. For most golfers, I'd say it's more beneficial to get, say, 5* of accuracy and a 15% less chance of flubbing the shot over a 10% distance boost. Remember: Jack's advice [i]assumes that you can train yourself to hit straight/consistently[/i], so it only applies to people who have that ability. He says that one can be learned, and one cannot. But for most of us, the straight/consistent aspect is practically an infinite well, we'll never run out of potential to improve that. For us, I can't imagine starting golf by hitting as hard as possible to be very beneficial.

[Leftygolfer]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Straighter is not always better than longer.

Agree to a certain point.  I'd take consistant and long enough than long and wild.  I've never played with a good player who didn't keep it in play.   I've played with plenty who can hit it a long way on every 5th swing.  You aren't going to score losing balls and being in impossible places.

I also agree the gym is overrated in golf.  Good technique, hitting it solid, having the right sequences of events happen are what it takes to do it on a consistant basis.  I'm stronger than I've ever been.  My legs and ass are in the best shape ever.  I lost my flat butt and have more muscle on my back, arms, and core than ever.  Am I suddenly long?  Not anymore than I always have been.  If I had better technique I would hit it farther.

I think quality practice is more benificial to golf than anything.  I really don't look at PGA tour players and say, all good look at that athlete, looks like a track star.  Some, sure, but for the most part they practice golf.  Workout to stay in reasonable shape.  Rory hits it as far as anyone and I don't see him being a gym rat.

[LankyLefty]

Real bannana slice but still hit your fairways, thats just as good and being dead strait and hitting all your fairways.

Long as the ball ends up where you intended it to go... your in good shape.

[trackster]

Originally Posted by LankyLefty

Real bannana slice but still hit your fairways, thats just as good and being dead strait and hitting all your fairways.

Long as the ball ends up where you intended it to go... your in good shape.

False.  If you slice you are losing a considerable amount of distance.

[LankyLefty]

So slowing down in order to be strait you are losing a considerable amount of distance.

Point is you want to be as long as you can while maintaining as much accuracy as you can.

Is it better to be strait then long? Answer... the two have absolutely no correlation.

[Grumpter]

Quote:

False.  If you slice you are losing a considerable amount of distance.

I'm not so sure. Using Adobe Illustrator I come up with a ball would need to be hit 313 yards if it slices 30 yards out and comes back to straight in order to be the same distance as a 300 yard straight drive.

[sssam]

That was exactly my thought on reading the post - the Nicklaus adage - always start out hitting it as far as you can then you can work on accuracy later. But if we are talking about a 20 yard difference in 7 iron for an established player, then of course you are better off keeping ti straight - that is why we have different clubs.

Originally Posted by luu5

Maybe you should not compare 100yd and 250yd drives? Rather compare straight 140yd and woods bound 170yd 7i. I am not saying that the length is not important but let's keep it realistic.

Nicklaus thought it was more easier to train accuracy than length.

[jamo]

Straighter is ALWAYS better than longer.  I'll take 230 yards in the fairway over 275 yards in the woods every time.

If it's in the woods, yeah, straighter is better, but that's not a great comparison. 230 in the fairway is playable, 275 in the woods isn't. A true comparison would be 230 in the fairway vs. 275 in the rough, or 175 in the fairway vs. 275 in the woods. To really compare them, you need equal comparisons, because noting says by being long you have to be wild, and nothing say shy being short you must be straight. The first comparison is two situations in which you still have a good shot at scoring par, and the second comparison you will probably drop a stroke. Otherwise, people would never choose to be in the woods, it's guaranteed lost shots. In the first comparison I listed, I'd take the long one. In the second comparison, I'd take the short one. Thus, my answer is it depends.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by jamo

Quote:

Originally Posted by TitleistWI

Straighter is ALWAYS better than longer.  I'll take 230 yards in the fairway over 275 yards in the woods every time.

If it's in the woods, yeah, straighter is better, but that's not a great comparison. 230 in the fairway is playable, 275 in the woods isn't. A true comparison would be 230 in the fairway vs. 275 in the rough, or 175 in the fairway vs. 275 in the woods. To really compare them, you need equal comparisons, because noting says by being long you have to be wild, and nothing say shy being short you must be straight. The first comparison is two situations in which you still have a good shot at scoring par, and the second comparison you will probably drop a stroke. Otherwise, people would never choose to be in the woods, it's guaranteed lost shots.

In the first comparison I listed, I'd take the long one. In the second comparison, I'd take the short one. Thus, my answer is it depends.

I can cite many examples of hole layouts where a long carry can be virtually sprayed 50 yards right or left and be much better off than a sub 230 yard drive perfectly straight down the middle. I can point to holes where being long and off the fairway even a little bit is a mistake. Most long drivers can think of both types of holes and courses. That's why they tend to scoff at absolutes.