Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[Jakester23]

I know I'm not alone in this. I watch the golf channel a lot and many of the viewer questions on the instructional shows echo my experiences with regard to full shots with wedges.

I'm not saying your alone I'm saying if you give me or anyone I play with 2 par 3 ' s one where I can hit my wedge and one where I hit my 7i every one I've seen would rather play the shorter one. Also I would be willing to bet an amount of money that matters to me the scores would be significantly lower on average on the wedge hole then the 7i hole.

[billchao]

Right. And being more accurate keeps you out of the woods. Being longer does not.

Again, nobody is advocating being stupid. Hitting it longer while bringing trouble into play would be stupid. If you have a hole where hitting it 20 yards farther really does bring a lot of trouble into play, I don't think anyone here will recommend doing that. But if the hole is wide open, that 20 extra yards (even in the rough) is worth a lot more to your score in the long run than being in the fairway. [quote name="rb72" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/150#post_1078810"]And if swinging harder isn't the topic than the topic is moot. How else would an individual golfer choose between accuracy and length? [/quote]There are numerous ways a golfer can manipulate their shots. It's not the topic of this thread, but we can discuss it in another one if you'd like.

[rb72]

Again, nobody is advocating being stupid. Hitting it longer while bringing trouble into play would be stupid. If you have a hole where hitting it 20 yards farther really does bring a lot of trouble into play, I don't think anyone here will recommend doing that. But if the hole is wide open, that 20 extra yards (even in the rough) is worth a lot more to your score in the long run than being in the fairway.

There are numerous ways a golfer can manipulate their shots. It's not the topic of this thread, but we can discuss it in another one if you'd like.

I don't know about the golf courses you play (actually i do know at least one) but on the courses I play most of the holes introduce some kind of penalty for inaccuracy off the tee and very, very few are "wide open". I'm not sure what golfers you're talking about either but the ones that I'm talking about (mid to high handicappers) do not possess "numerous ways" to "manipulate their shots".

[iacas]

I did spend some time thinking about "distance is a form of accuracy" but it is a very loose relationship, as distance is only good if you're still on the fairway. If the distance takes you off the fairway, it's bad.

Incorrect.

Anyone who chooses distance is just being blinded by ego.

Incorrect.

I will never be persuaded that distance is more important than accuracy :-)

Thank you for telling us that you are close-minded. Will save a lot of people a lot of time trying to get you to see that there's room for your understanding to grow.

I have played with hundreds of players of all abilities from beginners to Gary Wolstenholme and Lee Westwood.

I can 100% guarantee that accuracy is way more important than distance.

And if swinging harder isn't the topic than the topic is moot. How else would an individual golfer choose between accuracy and length?

Plenty of ways. Three easy ones to name are:

• Improve the technique (easy to hard to do, depending)
• Improve the launch conditions (hit up slightly, etc.)
• Improve the equipment (better fitting clubs)

[GHIN0011458]

I myself as a lower handicapper think that accuracy is more important(for now). For example when I play smart off the tee and give myself a 9 iron instead of a gap wedge into a green but am in the fairway I typically do better, because I can play the number vs having the ball roll out as much from getting less spin. The better chance I have to hit and hold a firm green the better I am going to score. That is me though. I ended up buying the book :) and am going to take the findings and implement them into my game and see what comes of it. I won 2 events this year where iron off the tee won it for me and I lost 2 events this year because I pulled Driver to force birdie.

I was thinking about it though... let's go play a par 3 course. Obviously the guy who is hitting a wedge off the tee vs a guy who is hitting a 7 iron off the tee is going to have an advantage. But on a championship course, I have scored my best rounds when I make very little mistakes because of accuracy, strategy, and good short game.

[Golfingdad]

... and I lost 2 events this year because I pulled Driver to force birdie.

Curious about this:

If you were trying to force a birdie then you were behind, right?  In which case, you didn't lose because you pulled driver, but rather, you pulled driver knowing that was your best chance to win and it didn't work out.

Or, if you were ahead ... why were you trying to force birdie?

There is a section in the book on this exact scenario, and I won't give it away, but it explains quite well why you'd be justified in making certain decisions.

---

I had a similar scenario in my last tournament.  On the last hole, 235 out on a par 5 with water all down the left side of the hole and around the back of the green.

If I wanted to play the percentages, then I'd lay up on that par 5 all day long.  There is very little risk involved in that hole when played that way, and it becomes quite easy to make par.  There will also be a few bogies and birdies mixed in, but no eagles or others.

But that day, I knew I was likely a couple of shots out of the lead, so what good was playing the percentages?  So I could finish in 3rd?  That is a situation where you are trying to win so you try to "force" birdie or perhaps even eagle.  If you fail and end up making bogey or double ... that decision didn't "lose" the tournament for you because if you didn't make that decision then you were losing anyway.

(In case you were curious, I made bogey and finished in 4th.

[rb72]

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Thank you for telling us that you are close-minded. Will save a lot of people a lot of time trying to get you to see that there's room for your understanding to grow.

Plenty of ways. Three easy ones to name are:

Improve the technique (easy to hard to do, depending)

Improve the launch conditions (hit up slightly, etc.)

Improve the equipment (better fitting clubs)

Well I guess I can only speak for myself, although everyone I talk to that plays at the same level as I do says basically the same thing. To address your bullet points;

1.As I said,I am talking about a given skill level. Obviously improving technique would improve both distance and accuracy. If i go out on the golf course and my focus is to get more distance off the tee so I leave myself less to the hole on the approach it doesn't work out for me. I actually tried this as a result of reading your book. I have been playing better than ever with this slower more controlled swing breaking 90 more often than not for the first time in 19 years of playing golf. Then one day after reading LSW I discovered a little mechanism that helped me hit the driver about 20 to 30 yards longer and at first I was keeping them in play. By the end of the round 2 out of 3 of those drives were not in play and it was a 2 way miss. But I kept trying it. I gave it 7 or 8 rounds of trial and I did not break 90 in any one of those rounds. I went back to my controlled swing that got me 20-30 yards less and went back to breaking 90 regularly.

2. Doesn't work for me.I already hit it too high (even with a 9.5 deg stiff shafted driver). When I'm slow and controlled I hit it too high 220 yards and in play 80% of the time. When I swing harder I hit too high 250 yards and in play 50% of the time. what i need to do is bring my trajectory down some and I could hit my smooth shots 240. But I can't. I would if I could, but i can't. This goes to technique.

3. Already been fitted.

I agree that improving distance would lead to better scores but improving distance through improving technique would be the only thing that makes sense and improving technique would also improve accuracy. But if you go out on a given day focusing on getting more distance out of your driver instead of putting your driver in play (with less distance) I can't see that do anything but hurting your score.I know it does mine.

[GHIN0011458]

Curious about this:

If you were trying to force a birdie then you were behind, right?  In which case, you didn't lose because you pulled driver, but rather, you pulled driver knowing that was your best chance to win and it didn't work out.

Or, if you were ahead ... why were you trying to force birdie?

There is a section in the book on this exact scenario, and I won't give it away, but it explains quite well why you'd be justified in making certain decisions.

I had a similar scenario in my last tournament.  On the last hole, 235 out on a par 5 with water all down the left side of the hole and around the back of the green.

If I wanted to play the percentages, then I'd lay up on that par 5 all day long.  There is very little risk involved in that hole when played that way, and it becomes quite easy to make par.  There will also be a few bogies and birdies mixed in, but no eagles or others.

But that day, I knew I was likely a couple of shots out of the lead, so what good was playing the percentages?  So I could finish in 3rd?  That is a situation where you are trying to win so you try to "force" birdie or perhaps even eagle.  If you fail and end up making bogey or double ... that decision didn't "lose" the tournament for you because if you didn't make that decision then you were losing anyway.

(In case you were curious, I made bogey and finished in 4th.

No I wasn't behind. I was tied. Birdie=win. Shot 70 the first day and was tied for first with 3 other golfers. 2nd day comes around and I changed the strategy because I am in the thick of things and it blew up in my face, shot 75, got 4th. IF I would have shot 70 the second day, I would have been in a tie for first.

[rkim291968]

One size doesn't fit all.  There are varying shade of grey besides black and white.  There's huge range of golfers from plus HI to 30+ HI who are in various stages of golf (age, interest level, physic, ...), playing in different golf courses, different tee length, etc..  I hope no one is saying that "for all" instances, distance is more important the length or vice versa.   So I can only speak for myself.   Where I am at now in my golf journey, I am working on accuracy more than distance.

[Lihu]

One size doesn't fit all.  There are varying shade of grey besides black and white.  There's huge range of golfers from plus HI to 30+ HI who are in various stages of golf (age, interest level, physic, ...), playing in different golf courses, different tee length, etc..  I hope no one is saying that "for all" instances, distance is more important the length or vice versa.   So I can only speak for myself.   Where I am at now in my golf journey, I am working on accuracy more than distance.

The game dictates that distance is key to being successful in it. Distance and handicap are pretty well correlated across thousands of golfers of all ages and athletic ability.

[saevel25]

No I wasn't behind. I was tied. Birdie=win. Shot 70 the first day and was tied for first with 3 other golfers. 2nd day comes around and I changed the strategy because I am in the thick of things and it blew up in my face, shot 75, got 4th. IF I would have shot 70 the second day, I would have been in a tie for first.

You can't assume you would have shot 70 if you didn't take driver out.  You could have hit iron off the tee, put it in play, then hit a horrible 2nd shot and still ended up out of contention.

Hypothetical doesn't really support anything in a discussion.

[Jakester23]

One size doesn't fit all.  There are varying shade of grey besides black and white.  There's huge range of golfers from plus HI to 30+ HI who are in various stages of golf (age, interest level, physic, ...), playing in different golf courses, different tee length, etc..  I hope no one is saying that "for all" instances, distance is more important the length or vice versa.   So I can only speak for myself.   Where I am at now in my golf journey, I am working on accuracy more than distance.

It's not that one size fits all it's just a fact that golf is easier the closer you are to the hole. A one foot putt is easier than a 10 foot putt. A 50 yard shot is easier than a 150 yard shot. If you don't believe me go play a round from the ladies or juniors tees. Almost all of us would shoot better scores. If you don't it's an anomaly.

[GHIN0011458]

You can't assume you would have shot 70 if you didn't take driver out.  You could have hit iron off the tee, put it in play, then hit a horrible 2nd shot and still ended up out of contention.

Hypothetical doesn't really support anything in a discussion.

You're right, I shouldn't assume. But I would have given myself a much better chance to shoot another 70 and that is a fact considering where my tee shots ended up that day. Is that fair? And how many horrible 2nd shots are you going to hit? Maybe two at most with a 7-9 iron in hand?  vs having to shape shots around trees because I wanted to put a wedge in my hand.

[iacas]

Well I guess I can only speak for myself, although everyone I talk to that plays at the same level as I do says basically the same thing.

You're a 17. No offense intended to you as a person… but why should anyone care at all what a bunch of 17s think about how to play the best golf?

1.As I said,I am talking about a given skill level. Obviously improving technique would improve both distance and accuracy.

This thread is not constrained to "a golfer who is never going to improve." I've taken this discussion as helping to guide that improvement, not swinging out of your shoes to try to instantly get more distance.

If others are taking it how you seem to have, well, that's a pretty pointless conversation IMO. You've gotta hit the ball solidly first and foremost. Once you get away from that it's not a good thing.

You said that golfers hit it farther by swinging harder. That's incorrect. They can also, as I assumed was related to this thread, hit it better.

2. Doesn't work for me.I already hit it too high (even with a 9.5 deg stiff shafted driver). When I'm slow and controlled I hit it too high 220 yards and in play 80% of the time. When I swing harder I hit too high 250 yards and in play 50% of the time. what i need to do is bring my trajectory down some and I could hit my smooth shots 240. But I can't. I would if I could, but i can't. This goes to technique.

Physics don't work for you? Okay. Sure. :P

3. Already been fitted.

I was not talking about just and only you. That's pointless for the purposes of this conversation.

No I wasn't behind. I was tied. Birdie=win. Shot 70 the first day and was tied for first with 3 other golfers. 2nd day comes around and I changed the strategy because I am in the thick of things and it blew up in my face, shot 75, got 4th. IF I would have shot 70 the second day, I would have been in a tie for first.

Based on what little you've shared, you played the odds incorrectly.

Still, single data points are virtually worthless in this type of a discussion.

You're right, I shouldn't assume. But I would have given myself a much better chance to shoot another 70 and that is a fact considering where my tee shots ended up that day. Is that fair? And how many horrible 2nd shots are you going to hit? Maybe two at most with a 7-9 iron in hand?  vs having to shape shots around trees because I wanted to put a wedge in my hand.

You can't say that with a high degree of certainty. Perhaps you had a bad day that could have been worse with longer clubs.

Plus, if you "laid back" and still only had 7-iron as your longest club, you played a short course. That's the type of course that warrants lots of exceptions, if it's that short.

[Golfingdad]

You're right, I shouldn't assume. But I would have given myself a much better chance to shoot another 70 and that is a fact considering where my tee shots ended up that day. Is that fair? And how many horrible 2nd shots are you going to hit? Maybe two at most with a 7-9 iron in hand?  vs having to shape shots around trees because I wanted to put a wedge in my hand.

I thought we were talking about one hole? Now it sounds like you're talking about the entire round. Did you shoot 70 the first day with irons off the tee and end up tied for first then decide to hit driver all day the second day?

[GHIN0011458]

I thought we were talking about one hole? Now it sounds like you're talking about the entire round. Did you shoot 70 the first day with irons off the tee and end up tied for first then decide to hit driver all day the second day?

Yes- First day I always play more conservative. Why? No mistakes is going to put you into contention if you are striking it well. 2nd day I am trying to make a move so I have to get a little more aggressive.

[Mike Liang]

When it comes to the mid to high handicapper, swinging harder to gain distance isn't going to send you from the fairway to the rough, it’s going to send you from the fairway or rough to the woods.

This is almost the truth... everyone golfer wants to believe they can hit is as far as the next guy but they choose not to because accuracy is more important.  It's a good excuse... better than the truth, that for a golfer to gain those 20 yards, they would need to improve everything, impact, trajectory, swing speed, lag... etc.  But don't tell that to a golfer with as much pride as Simon, the way he slips in his low scores and name drops in his posts, players like that don't take it well when you tell them they simply aren't capable of hitting it longer consistently like others who can.

The fact is, this has been mathematically proven, that two golfers with the normalized difference in accuracy/distance, distance has a greater impact to scoring average than accuracy.  It is evident in all the statistics and even reflected in the pro tour stats.

But when discussing this with a single golfer, the trade-off difference for accuracy/distance is not normalized, as much as you remember the one time you swung hard and pelted one out there, that is not something that can be sustained if technically, your swing does not support that swing speed.  Instead, that single golfer is more likely to display the symptoms you listed above then the normalized difference of a few GIR.  Thus, the repeated lie to other golfers and themselves... 'Accuracy more important, I can hit just as far as you but I'd give up a little accuracy'... yea right~

[JonMA1]

It's not that one size fits all it's just a fact that golf is easier the closer you are to the hole. A one foot putt is easier than a 10 foot putt. A 50 yard shot is easier than a 150 yard shot. If you don't believe me go play a round from the ladies or juniors tees. Almost all of us would shoot better scores.

If you don't it's an anomaly.

Is anyone arguing this point? I think the argument is throughout the round, which club do you pull off the tee, or which club will get you to an acceptable approach shot. And if I'm understanding what the accuracy folks are saying, that depends on the circumstance.

Certainly given the choice, we would all rather be at 100 yards than 150. But aren't there circumstances when you have to opt for a longer approach shot? I read the LSW and the section on decision maps indicates there are. It's just that those instances are less common than conventional wisdom dictates.

The two sides are closer on this than you could tell by the pissing contest that's going on. No offense to either side.

You're a 17. No offense intended to you as a person… but why should anyone care at all what a bunch of 17s think about how to play the best golf?

Because unless someone's an obvious whack job, I think that most of the opinions on this site are worth considering.