Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[iacas]

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

I did not say their opinions weren't worth considering at all.

17s (" although everyone I talk to that plays at the same level as I do says basically the same thing.") aren't experts on the subject.

It's kind of like asking the fry cook at McDonald's about his opinion on gourmet food. :)

[rb72]

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?

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.

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

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

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 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.

I think a 17 should care what other 17s have found to be helpful.

You mean your physics say the higher the better? Mine say there is an ideal trajectory and if you already hitting the ball higher than that ideal trajectory hitting it any higher will not help you hit it longer.

I acknowledged that a sampling of ONE does not prove or disprove a trend. I was trying to make an "all things being equal" argument.

I do however believe that many of your principles have a point of diminishing returns in terms of skill level and I think the tipping point is right around the average golfer.

BTW I'm now playing to a 14.4 and I attribute the improvement, as I said, to my "throttle back off the tee" philosophy.

[turtleback]

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~

The funny thing is how pervasive the accuracy over distance myth is.  I well remember when Tiger was in the midst of his Haney period when he wasn't hitting many fairways but was winning everything in site, how supposedly knowledgeable commentators would say silly things like "He should just hit that 3-wood stinger every time since he would be in the fairway so much more."

There are reasons not to go for maximum distance but they are strategic and have to do with avoiding trouble like pinched fairways, bunkers, etc.

[Jakester23]

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

It sounds to me like people are arguing this. To me it's obvious if your play a 320 yard hole with trees and ob on the right and water left it might not be the best idea for everyone to hit a driver. If you have your shot zones figured out and are able to hit a 3w leaving yourself 60 yards your better off than hitting your 5 iron leaving 120. Hitting a stupid shot shouldn't even be factored into this topic. Neither should a huge duck hook when your normal shot is a fade. Your going to hit bad shots playing irons off every tee to eliminate the possibility of a penalty isn't the way to achieve your best score.

[GHIN0011458]

I think a 17 should care what other 17s have found to be helpful.

You mean your physics say the higher the better? Mine say there is an ideal trajectory and if you already hitting the ball higher than that ideal trajectory hitting it any higher will not help you hit it longer.

I acknowledged that a sampling of ONE does not prove or disprove a trend. I was trying to make an "all things being equal" argument.

I do however believe that many of your principles have a point of diminishing returns in terms of skill level and I think the tipping point is right around the average golfer.

BTW I'm now playing to a 14.4 and I attribute the improvement, as I said, to my "throttle back off the tee" philosophy.

I think what he is saying is that he is an expert on the game of golf and has studied it. His findings and teachings are based on the best of the best. Would you rather take lessons from a 17 handicap or from a scratch guy? I have rarely defended this but I think you playing from a 17 to a 14.4 there is a lot more room for improvement than say a 10 playing to a 7.4 right? There are so many other things that could have you playing to a 14.4 than just playing smart off the tee, although it most likely has some to do with your better scoring. There is just a ton of room for improvement at a 17. I have said it before and I never want to say it to sound like I don't take them seriously but as a lower handicapper it is VERY tough for me to take advice from a 10-20 handicapper. I would take secondary advice from them that has been given to them from a pro though.

[iacas]

I think a 17 should care what other 17s have found to be helpful.

In a limited capacity, sure.

You mean your physics say the higher the better? Mine say there is an ideal trajectory and if you already hitting the ball higher than that ideal trajectory hitting it any higher will not help you hit it longer.

Nope. Please don't put words in my mouth. I am simply saying that you can, without "changing your swing," do some things to go from hitting -2° AoA to +4° AoA and gain distance. If you already have ideal launch conditions, then no.

I acknowledged that a sampling of ONE does not prove or disprove a trend. I was trying to make an "all things being equal" argument.

I do however believe that many of your principles have a point of diminishing returns in terms of skill level and I think the tipping point is right around the average golfer.

I disagree, but I also don't think you really understand "my principles." They're pretty clear in the book… and they are nowhere near "distance is always more important than accuracy."

The funny thing is how pervasive the accuracy over distance myth is.  I well remember when Tiger was in the midst of his Haney period when he wasn't hitting many fairways but was winning everything in site, how supposedly knowledgeable commentators would say silly things like "He should just hit that 3-wood stinger every time since he would be in the fairway so much more."

There are reasons not to go for maximum distance but they are strategic and have to do with avoiding trouble like pinched fairways, bunkers, etc.

+1.

I'd say let's try to avoid using pros as examples, but in the absence of that… we're left just making up our own examples.

[rb72]

I think what he is saying is that he is an expert on the game of golf and has studied it. His findings and teachings are based on the best of the best. Would you rather take lessons from a 17 handicap or from a scratch guy? I have rarely defended this but I think you playing from a 17 to a 14.4 there is a lot more room for improvement than say a 10 playing to a 7.4 right? There are so many other things that could have you playing to a 14.4 than just playing smart off the tee, although it most likely has some to do with your better scoring. There is just a ton of room for improvement at a 17. I have said it before and I never want to say it to sound like I don't take them seriously but as a lower handicapper it is VERY tough for me to take advice from a 10-20 handicapper. I would take secondary advice from them that has been given to them from a pro though.

Not necessarily. Keep in mind I'm 57 and I've been playing for 19 years and this is the most significant drop in my scoring average,ever. And I made one change to my game...throttle back the driver. I think a twenty something with two years of golf under his belt who takes extensive lessons leading up to his third year should improve at least that much. Don't you?

[rb72]

Not necessarily. Keep in mind I'm 57 and I've been playing for 19 years and this is the most significant drop in my scoring average,ever. And I made one change to my game...throttle back the driver. I think a twenty something with two years of golf under his belt who takes extensive lessons leading up to his third year should improve at least that much. Don't you?

I have no doubt, but they are not based on the worst of the average. That's my point. I'm sure his teaching methods are great and his principles are sound, I just think that the average bogie golfer needs to get better before they apply to him. I actually like the 5SK stuff. In fact if LSW is ever going to help me I better brush up on the 5SKs.

[JonMA1]

It sounds to me like people are arguing this. To me it's obvious if your play a 320 yard hole with trees and ob on the right and water left it might not be the best idea for everyone to hit a driver. If you have your shot zones figured out and are able to hit a 3w leaving yourself 60 yards your better off than hitting your 5 iron leaving 120. Hitting a stupid shot shouldn't even be factored into this topic. Neither should a huge duck hook when your normal shot is a fade. Your going to hit baf shots playing irons off every tee to eliminate the possibility of a penalty isn't the way to achieve your best score.

You don't have to convince me of any of this. I've tried to play conservatively and it almost never equates to lower scores. Most of the time, the decision as to which club or shot I choose it the right choice. I'll say that even if I fail to execute the shot. And just so we're clear, when I fail to execute with a full swing gap wedge over a creek, it has nothing to do with taking too much risk.

As far as those who favor accuracy over distance, with a few exceptions, I think if you were to put them over the same exact shot as someone (with equal skill level) from the distance camp, they'd play a similar shot. And even if they didn't, who's to say that because of the layout of the hole, they might have more confidence being left with a 7 iron vs a 9 iron approach than a driver vs a 3wood off the tee. In this case, the lesser club would be right for them.

The idea of arguing over how someone else should play an imaginary hole is pointless. I'd much rather see an example of a hole posted (as in LSW) and then see the two sides post how they'd play it.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHIN0011458

I think what he is saying is that he is an expert on the game of golf and has studied it. His findings and teachings are based on the best of the best. Would you rather take lessons from a 17 handicap or from a scratch guy? I have rarely defended this but I think you playing from a 17 to a 14.4 there is a lot more room for improvement than say a 10 playing to a 7.4 right? There are so many other things that could have you playing to a 14.4 than just playing smart off the tee, although it most likely has some to do with your better scoring. There is just a ton of room for improvement at a 17. I have said it before and I never want to say it to sound like I don't take them seriously but as a lower handicapper it is VERY tough for me to take advice from a 10-20 handicapper. I would take secondary advice from them that has been given to them from a pro though.

Not necessarily. Keep in mind I'm 57 and I've been playing for 19 years and this is the most significant drop in my scoring average,ever. And I made one change to my game...throttle back the driver. I think a twenty something with two years of golf under his belt who takes extensive lessons leading up to his third year should improve at least that much. Don't you?

If someone needs to swing out of their shoes to get higher swing speeds, then I agree that throttling back is the thing to do. There is a very high likelihood that most high handicaps try to swing out of their shoes to get speed, and end up making really bad drives. In this case, throttling back is a way to improve their swing mechanics, and what you say is absolutely true.

As a fellow 13-14 handicap, I have not even considered throttling back on the driver. The reason for this is that my mechanics does not really improve when I swing slower. So there is no real benefit to swinging slower.

[mvmac]

Consider the following story... Two identical 18-handicap twins find a rusty old lamp buried in the trees. They rub the lamp and out pops a genie. The genie says: I grant you one wish each, what will it be? Twin A: I want Rory McIlroy's distance. Twin B: I want Rory McIlroy's accuracy. The next day, the twins go out to play. Twin A: This extra distance is awesome, but I can't keep it in play. He loses 6 balls and spends most of the day hacking out of the deep rough. He shoots 110. Twin B: This extra accuracy is awesome, I can't miss a fairway. He drops 3 shots on the long par 4's but picks up 3 birdies on the short holes and shoots 72. Next week, two identical scratch handicap twins find the lamp, they rub it, out pops the genie, blah, blah, blah. The next day, they go out to play: Twin A; This extra distance is awesome, but it's not easy to hit the fairway at 300 yards. He makes a couple of extra birdies, but he hits 3 in the long rough and makes two double bogeys. He shoots 74. Twin B: This extra accuracy is awesome, my GIR is way higher. He makes 1 extra birdie and 1 less bogey and shoots 70. For the 18 handicappers there is no comparison, improved accuracy easily beats an equivalent improvement in distance. For the scratch handicappers, there is less difference, but accuracy still wins. Anyone who still thinks distance is more important, ask yourself....                                    Would you rather have Rory's distance or Rory's accuracy? Anyone who chooses distance is just being blinded by ego. Accuracy is way more important, as proved by Gary Wolstenholme :-) Simon

It's never that black and white. Typically good players have a combination of both. I'd go with Rory's distance. I'd rather have wedges from the rough than 7-8 irons from the fairway. Most courses have rough that isn't very penal. [quote name="rb72" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/120#post_1078784"]Okay, how about a real story. Obviously learning better technique to gain distance off the tee is beneficial, but better technique will also increase accuracy so what we’re talking about here is creating more distance with a given skill level.  I know when I swing (with the driver) at about 85% I can keep it in play (fairway or rough) most of the time and get about 220-230 yards out of it. I also know that with a smooth 95% swing I can get about 245-255 yards but that swing also puts me in the woods about 30% more often than my 85% swing so a 10% increase in distance gets me in the woods 30% more often and blows up my score. 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. [/quote] I never said anything about swinging harder. Swinging "harder" for amateurs typically results in poor contact. Hitting the ball the most solid you can and having a positive AoA (driver) results in long and accurate shots

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Agreed, absolutely.   It's a general statement which applies to most golfers.   But arguments some are making it sounds like distance is the utmost importance to every golfer regardless of where they are in their golfer stage. That's an extreme position that is not going to hold water for every golfer out there.  If you take such an extreme position, people are going to find holes pn it.   And saying so 1000 times does not make it apply to every golfer in every stage of their golf career.   After all, this is not math where 1 + 1 = 2 (well in most cases).

[DrvFrShow]

I think where the confusion is coming in with the high handicap players with this distance vs. accuracy debate is that you can make numbers look any way you want. For a woman, I'm a long hitter. According to the numbers, I should be a single digit handicap player. I'm not. But why am I not? Is it because I'm a long hitter? No. I make bad shots, yes. Everyone makes bad shots. It's a combination of bad shots and bad on-course decisions. I think bad on-course decisions plague the higher-handicap golfer. This distance vs accuracy debate is confusing the issue.

Sometimes I will try a shot that I have no business trying. At the end of the season, after a bad shot I simply learned to take my medicine and punch the ball back onto the fairway rather than try the heroic save. The heroic save attempt kept me over 100. There were other bad decisions as well like not spotting the trouble spot - going for the distance on the par 5 when I should leave myself short of the trouble so I can hit a better second shot. The par 5 is only 419 yds. and I can make it in 3 shots easily. Why am I trying to make it in 2? Play smart. I'm not ready to try to make it in 2. If all goes well I can, but it doesn't happen. I can get pin high, but I'm swinging out of my shoes on the second shot and it goes wild. That's not smart golf.

Yes, it's easier when you're closer to the hole. It's easier when you're not in trouble. I'll bet most of you lower handicap players make better decisions on the course than us higher handicap players. It isn't just about hitting the ball far. So I'd say it's using distance wisely. You still have to know how to play the game. You have to know your strengths and weaknesses and play to your strengths. Practice your weaknesses.

@rb72 . Your "throttling back" strategy perhaps is simply playing your game within your capabilities rather than trying to exceed your limits. A player like Rory can hit a 300 yd drive and it's effortless for him. He also has neuro-muscular memory from hitting hundreds of thousands of balls. For someone like me to hit a 240 yd drive I have to give it everything I have, and that's not something that's going to end well about 50% of the time on the golf course. Sure, I may get some good hits, but those 50% aren't going to help me because it's not the effortless swing like Rory's. So I'll hit it a little easier to 220 and be a little more accurate. I don't think the statistics in the book are based on a player's maximum drive, but their average drive. That's a big difference.

Still the data doesn't factor in bad decisions. And like others said, my hitting a fat wedge shot into the water hazard is not a bad decision. It's a bad shot.Choosing to lay up so I can hit my 8 iron from 135 on that same hole? Why would I do that? I know how close I can get to the water before I'm in trouble. I've hit an 7 iron to lay up 15 yds back from the water - 75 yds from the flag. I'll take that every time over 135 yds. If I hit it fat, that's on me. That's what this debate is about.

[Jakester23]

Agreed, absolutely.   It's a general statement which applies to most golfers.   But arguments some are making it sounds like distance is the utmost importance to every golfer regardless of where they are in their golfer stage. That's an extreme position that is not going to hold water for every golfer out there.  If you take such an extreme position, people are going to find holes pn it.   And saying so 1000 times does not make it apply to every golfer in every stage of their golf career.   After all, this is not math where 1 + 1 = 2 (well in most cases).

Your right it's not math but 75 <115. 150 <190 and shooting an 80 <85. Name me one person who would rather have a 7i over a pw or a 4i over a 7i. I'm not saying every hole is a driver hole or every player should be hitting driver on the same hole but the close to the hole you are to the hole the better your scores will be.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Agreed, absolutely.   It's a general statement which applies to most golfers.   But arguments some are making it sounds like distance is the utmost importance to every golfer regardless of where they are in their golfer stage.   That's an extreme position that is not going to hold water for every golfer out there.  If you take such an extreme position, people are going to find holes pn it.   And saying so 1000 times does not make it apply to every golfer in every stage of their golf career.   After all, this is not math where 1 + 1 = 2 (well in most cases).

Your right it's not math but 75 <115. 150 <190 and shooting an 80 <85. Name me one person who would rather have a 7i over a pw or a 4i over a 7i. I'm not saying every hole is a driver hole or every player should be hitting driver on the same hole but the close to the hole you are to the hole the better your scores will be.

Again, no argument there.  That's just common sense.   I am only objecting to the argument that distance is the most important thing to every amateur golfer regardless of what the circumstance is for the golfer.   Can you see my point without putting words in my mouth as if I said something contrary to "distance is important" for amateur golfers?

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakester23

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Agreed, absolutely.   It's a general statement which applies to most golfers.   But arguments some are making it sounds like distance is the utmost importance to every golfer regardless of where they are in their golfer stage.   That's an extreme position that is not going to hold water for every golfer out there.  If you take such an extreme position, people are going to find holes pn it.   And saying so 1000 times does not make it apply to every golfer in every stage of their golf career.   After all, this is not math where 1 + 1 = 2 (well in most cases).

Your right it's not math but 75 <115. 150 <190 and shooting an 80 <85. Name me one person who would rather have a 7i over a pw or a 4i over a 7i. I'm not saying every hole is a driver hole or every player should be hitting driver on the same hole but the close to the hole you are to the hole the better your scores will be.

Again, no argument there.  That's just common sense.   I am only objecting to the argument that distance is the most important thing to every amateur golfer regardless of what the circumstance is for the golfer.   Can you see my point without putting words in my mouth as if I said something contrary to "distance is important" for amateur golfers?

Right, I think most of us figured this to be the case. The point we are making is that to shoot lower scores you need to able to hit the ball farther.

On a side note, I have a lot of confidence that you can also hit longer drives with some good instruction, so the point is going to be moot for you.

[Jakester23]

Again, no argument there.  That's just common sense.   I am only objecting to the argument that distance is the most important thing to every amateur golfer regardless of what the circumstance is for the golfer.   Can you see my point without putting words in my mouth as if I said something contrary to "distance is important" for amateur golfers?

I completely agree with you. It's not the most important thing but having a shorter approach shot can help you score better. Honestly the most important thing IMO for an amateur golfer is getting lessons from a good coach. You will hit the ball farther if you swing is better an you hit the ball out of the middle of the club more often. I've personally gained a club and a half in the last 2 years on all my clubs strictly from changing my swing (all thanks to the sand trap).

[Dave2512]

Being closer to the green after a long shot rarely would be a worse situation. I'd rather be in a bunker next to the green than 70 yards out. The only time I lay up is when too far could be a problem, risk of penalty, lost ball etc. The reason higher handicap golfers have a tough time understanding this is they are accustomed to hitting an abundance of poor shots throughout a round. At the 6500 yard course I play most I only hit driver 8 times in 18 holes only because that's the way the course sets up from the longest tees. Other courses I hit driver 14 times. Anyone that doubts closer isn't better should try moving up to the most forward tees rated for their sex and think about the resulting lower than usual score.