Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[iacas]

If that isn't a fair test then im open to ideas on how to make it a fair test.I can drop the 2nd ball in the rough everytime if that makes you feel better.I honestly think no matter what I do some people are going to discount the experiment.The only way your going to find out how much it will help is to do the experiment.A study doesn't hit the ball for you.Im sure the added distance will help my score but I want to find out how much it will help.Just because you play shorter tees doesn't mean your going to score better granted im not talking playing 6000 yards compared to 6800 but 6400 and 6000 wont make much difference.

You're not going to devise a fair test; not in one round.

[DrvFrShow]

And you're not going to devise a fair test with only yourself. You need a larger sample size. I'd do it if the weather was nicer up here, but I don't play in swamp conditions.

[Lihu]

Sometimes it's nice to verify a hypothesis even if only for your own benefit.

[9424tm]

I had a "test" of my own this year. I took a lesson for my driver and began finally hitting it (after a fair amount of practice) MUCH further and MUCH straighter. I did not gain any distance on my irons. My HC dropped significantly. I was using a hybrid or 3 wood off of the tee and hitting a decent amount of fairways. But I was still using long irons on my approach shots. Now, it's short(er) irons into the greens and far mor GIR. Weird huh? But here's the deal, we have folks on this thread trying to debate with half of the info. Please for the love of God read Lowest Score Wins and have this discussion. I promise that once you read (and really comprehend) the book you will fully understand the arguments being made.

[DrvFrShow]

I had a "test" of my own this year. I took a lesson for my driver and began finally hitting it (after a fair amount of practice) MUCH further and MUCH straighter. I did not gain any distance on my irons. My HC dropped significantly.

I was using a hybrid or 3 wood off of the tee and hitting a decent amount of fairways. But I was still using long irons on my approach shots. Now, it's short(er) irons into the greens and far mor GIR. Weird huh?

But here's the deal, we have folks on this thread trying to debate with half of the info. Please for the love of God read Lowest Score Wins and have this discussion. I promise that once you read (and really comprehend) the book you will fully understand the arguments being made.

Not really weird. I'll bet your tempo changed with your driver. I see a lot of people with fast SS struggle to get distance with drivers. I think it's in their tempo. They rush that transition at the top of their back swing and lose that rhythm. Watch the long hitters, and they all have great tempo. That tempo sets up solid contact, and then the ball flies.

[rb72]

If that isn't a fair test then im open to ideas on how to make it a fair test.I can drop the 2nd ball in the rough everytime if that makes you feel better.I honestly think no matter what I do some people are going to discount the experiment.The only way your going to find out how much it will help is to do the experiment.A study doesn't hit the ball for you.Im sure the added distance will help my score but I want to find out how much it will help.Just because you play shorter tees doesn't mean your going to score better granted im not talking playing 6000 yards compared to 6800 but 6400 and 6000 wont make much difference.

Okay, lets start by assuming that we're not talking about improvement when answering the question "what's more important, distance or accuracy in terms of lowering your score?", because improvement of any kind will increase distance, accuracy and lower your score.

So lets assume the case of the golfer who can reliably hit his 3 wood but sprays his driver. Keep in mind I'm not saying this would be a practical experiment because it would be hard to do, but i believe it would be effective. Let's assume the golfer can typically put his 3 wood in play 11 times on a course with 14 driving holes (78%) but he can only put his driver in play 7 times (50%) for a 28% reduction in accuracy. He hits the drive 245 yards compares to 220 yards for the 3 wood for an 11.1% increase in distance.

Now for the impractical part. Someone would have to play multiple rounds (lets say 10) by placing the ball at 245 yards somewhere in play (mix it up between fairway and rough). Now, out of the other 7 driving holes, assume 3 are OOB or lost and take a stroke and distance penalty. On the other 4, place the ball somewhere where it has to be bumped laterally back to the fairway at about 180 to 200 yards. Record your average score for those 10 rounds. For your next 10 rounds, pick 11 holes and place the ball at 220 yards in play and put the other three where they have to be bumped out laterally from about 160 to 180. Record scores and compare.

[9424tm]

Not really weird. I'll bet your tempo changed with your driver. I see a lot of people with fast SS struggle to get distance with drivers. I think it's in their tempo. They rush that transition at the top of their back swing and lose that rhythm. Watch the long hitters, and they all have great tempo. That tempo sets up solid contact, and then the ball flies.

Sorry, that was my lame attempt at sarcasm. My point was that when I improved my distance off of the tee, my HC dropped big time even though my iron game remained the same. And yes, my tempo improved with my driver :)

[Jakester23]

Okay, lets start by assuming that we're not talking about improvement when answering the question "what's more important, distance or accuracy in terms of lowering your score?", because improvement of any kind will increase distance, accuracy and lower your score. So lets assume the case of the golfer who can reliably hit his 3 wood but sprays his driver. Keep in mind I'm not saying this would be a practical experiment because it would be hard to do, but i believe it would be effective. Let's assume the golfer can typically put his 3 wood in play 11 times on a course with 14 driving holes (78%) but he can only put his driver in play 7 times (50%) for a 28% reduction in accuracy. He hits the drive 245 yards compares to 220 yards for the 3 wood for an 11.1% increase in distance. Now for the impractical part. Someone would have to play multiple rounds (lets say 10) by placing the ball at 245 yards somewhere in play (mix it up between fairway and rough). Now, out of the other 7 driving holes, assume 3 are OOB or lost and take a stroke and distance penalty. On the other 4, place the ball somewhere where it has to be bumped laterally back to the fairway at about 180 to 200 yards. Record your average score for those 10 rounds. For your next 10 rounds, pick 11 holes and place the ball at 220 yards in play and put the other three where they have to be bumped out laterally from about 160 to 180. Record scores and compare.

I'm a fairly good with the driver and I got rid of my 3w because I had trouble hitting it and put a 4w in the bag. I'm not saying in your scenario above isn't possible but I haven't seen to many holes where an extra 25-30 yards would mean an extra 3 or 4 balls ob. If your that off line your 3w would probably be in trouble as well. You'd probably have to take out one or 2 tee shots a round for tops, or duffs depending on the players ability level. It's just impossible to really do this without just playing a course from the tips then playing the course from the closest tees. Play 10 rounds from each and compare your scores. You'd still have to take your shot zones and regular course management into consideration to make it a realistic experiment.

[rb72]

I'm a fairly good with the driver and I got rid of my 3w because I had trouble hitting it and put a 4w in the bag. I'm not saying in your scenario above isn't possible but I haven't seen to many holes where an extra 25-30 yards would mean an extra 3 or 4 balls ob. If your that off line your 3w would probably be in trouble as well. You'd probably have to take out one or 2 tee shots a round for tops, or duffs depending on the players ability level. It's just impossible to really do this without just playing a course from the tips then playing the course from the closest tees. Play 10 rounds from each and compare your scores. You'd still have to take your shot zones and regular course management into consideration to make it a realistic experiment.

You're missing the point. A lot of high handicappers hit their 3 wood more reliably than they hit their driver and actually I'm not one of them. That's why my method of choice is to cut back on the driver and that actually creates the percentages that I've used. It's not just the extra 25-30 yards that puts you OB (or lost) its they wider range of dispersion from a club (or swing) that you don't control as well (hence loss of accuracy) but hit farther with. The bottom line is it doesn't matter how you achieve the greater distance or accuracy, the question remains is that loss of accuracy worth the added distance (or vice versa).

[Jakester23]

You're missing the point. A lot of high handicappers hit their 3 wood more reliably than they hit their driver and actually I'm not one of them. That's why my method of choice is to cut back on the driver and that actually creates the percentages that I've used. It's not just the extra 25-30 yards that puts you OB (or lost) its they wider range of dispersion from a club (or swing) that you don't control as well (hence loss of accuracy) but hit farther with. The bottom line is it doesn't matter how you achieve the greater distance or accuracy, the question remains is that loss of accuracy worth the added distance (or vice versa).

I think we're agreeing on this. I just haven't personally seen a lot of people hit 3w better than driver. I honestly don't think I've ever played with someone who hits 3w better. I'm by no means saying it's not true that just hasn't been my experience. I personally can hit my 4w more accurate than my driver but the accuracy I'm gaining doesn't out weigh the distance I'm giving up. The last round I played this year I was on a 300 yr up hill tight par 4. I hit a driver right (thought it was 2 far right ob) so I hit my 4w right down the middle. I was probably 50-60 yards from the green with the 4w. I hit it on and walked up to the green and saw my drive almost hole high. My chances for birdie from 15 yards right of the green are much better than from 55 yards short in the fairway. I know that's only on situation but this all comes back to shot zones and course management. After reading LSW and understanding more about my game there is no reason to hit less than driver on that hole. I can't predict or worry about my bad shots . I'm going to have them but my goal is to give myself the best chance to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of shots.

[rb72]

I think we're agreeing on this. I just haven't personally seen a lot of people hit 3w better than driver. I honestly don't think I've ever played with someone who hits 3w better. I'm by no means saying it's not true that just hasn't been my experience. I personally can hit my 4w more accurate than my driver but the accuracy I'm gaining doesn't out weigh the distance I'm giving up. The last round I played this year I was on a 300 yr up hill tight par 4. I hit a driver right (thought it was 2 far right ob) so I hit my 4w right down the middle. I was probably 50-60 yards from the green with the 4w. I hit it on and walked up to the green and saw my drive almost hole high. My chances for birdie from 15 yards right of the green are much better than from 55 yards short in the fairway. I know that's only on situation but this all comes back to shot zones and course management. After reading LSW and understanding more about my game there is no reason to hit less than driver on that hole. I can't predict or worry about my bad shots . I'm going to have them but my goal is to give myself the best chance to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of shots.

Okay and if that particular example were representative of your "average" experience I would say you should definitely go for the distance because if you're 15 yards off on a 300 yard shot that's a pretty tight dispersion compared to losing 50-60 yards in distance. There has to be a tipping point somewhere. If for 10% more distance you're giving up 10% accuracy I would guess it's worth it but at 30% accuracy, I don't think so. And my theory is that the higher the HC, the greater the disparity in accuracy for each yard of distance gained.

[iacas]

Golf is simply a game of distance and accuracy. Seriously, that's it. You've gotta cover 400 yards and eventually get the ball into a very small hole. Distance and accuracy both matter… so even if accuracy was twice as important as distance, something that accounts for 33% of the game is pretty "important." That answers the topic question, does it not?

Plus, it turns out that accuracy is NOT twice as important. So…

Okay, lets start by assuming that we're not talking about improvement when answering the question "what's more important, distance or accuracy in terms of lowering your score?", because improvement of any kind will increase distance, accuracy and lower your score.

You can't answer that question generally.

The question posed is "is distance important to amateurs." The answer is yes. Generally speaking, it's also slightly more important than accuracy, but everyone has to judge this for themselves.

Again, all covered in LSW. And no, it doesn't say "MOAR DISTANCE!" It handles it the same way it handles every other decision you must make regarding what shot to play. You should buy a copy.

So lets assume the case of the golfer who can reliably hit his 3 wood but sprays his driver.

That guy doesn't really exist. Not like you seem to think he does.

You're missing the point. A lot of high handicappers hit their 3 wood more reliably than they hit their driver and actually I'm not one of them.

I think you'd be surprised. In my experience, that's not the case at all. If you're a higher handicapper, (12+), it's better than even money that if you're bad with your driver, you're as bad with your 3W. Smaller clubface, ball teed up closer to the ground, and only an inch or two shorter? Yeah, a bit more loft, but again, a much smaller clubface.

Hasn't been my experience at all. Heck, I and several of the PGA guys I play with would rather bunt a driver off the first tee than start the day with a 3W because it's got a bigger clubface… :)

Now for the impractical part. Someone would have to play multiple rounds (lets say 10) by placing the ball at 245 yards somewhere in play (mix it up between fairway and rough). Now, out of the other 7 driving holes, assume 3 are OOB or lost and take a stroke and distance penalty. On the other 4, place the ball somewhere where it has to be bumped laterally back to the fairway at about 180 to 200 yards. Record your average score for those 10 rounds. For your next 10 rounds, pick 11 holes and place the ball at 220 yards in play and put the other three where they have to be bumped out laterally from about 160 to 180. Record scores and compare.

That's just making stuff up. But, you stepped into a nice little trap. Mark Broadie has actually charted thousands of rounds of golfers of all ability levels. He pulled all of their data (where they hit each shot, their score, etc.), then simulated rounds with golfers of different ability levels, and produced this chart:

So let's go back to your example.

Let's assume the person in your trial gains 2° of accuracy and loses only 20 yards instead of the 25 you've given him. Since a PGA Tour golfer is about +/- 3.5°, an 80 golfer is about +/-5.5° or so, 90 is about 6.5, and 100 is about 7.5°, note that the 2° we're giving them is a significant increase in accuracy from hitting their 3W).

Golfer	Strokes Saved Accuracy	Strokes Lost Distance	Strokes Total
PGA Tour	2 * 0.8 = 1.6	-0.8	+0.8
80 Golfer	2 * 0.9 = 1.8	-1.3	+0.5
90 Golfer	2 * 1.0 = 2.0	-2.3	-0.3
100 Golfer	2 * 1.1 = 2.2	-2.7	-0.5

Contrary to your position that accuracy is more important to higher handicappers, the chart demonstrates the exact opposite: accuracy is more important (relatively) to the better player . It's never more important than distance when measured this way (1° versus 20 yards), despite the fact that 20 yards is a significantly smaller improvement than a degree (let alone two) of accuracy gained.

Is accuracy important?

Nobody is saying it's not.

But generally, distance is a little bit more important.

The upside: improving at your technique in general improves both .

As I said above, golf is simply a game of these two factors: you have to hit the ball far and accurately. It's basically a two-variable problem repeated 18 times. And, when you consider that golf is really only those two factors, distance has the edge. It's not an 80/20 edge or something. It might not even be 60/40. But it's in the lead, and thus, to answer the question… it's very important.

Everyone's free to have their own opinions, but Mark Broadie's got actual data on this from thousands of rounds of regular golfers, and nobody has (nor can they, really) countered this. Y'all can create hypotheticals (though as shown above even those can blow up in your face - @rb72 can you admit this?), but you're just literally making stuff up based on what you think your experiences have been.

I'll say that again: You're just making stuff up based on what you think your experiences have been.

You know how people are unreliable witnesses? They'll say the guy had a black cap on when it was red, and that he was 6'3 when he was 5'7" and stuff? Well, the same kind of blindness affects golfers. I've had a guy not breaking 90 tell me he'd be scratch with a better mental game. I've had someone ask me in all seriousness if he could make it to the PGA Tour when he'd yet to win a city championship. That's not to say you're all wildly off base, but you're unreliable witnesses to say the least.

Is accuracy important? Yes.

In general, is distance slightly more important to the amateur golfer? Yes.

Does this necessarily apply to single examples and hypotheticals? No.

[Morocco Mako]

IMHO, when it comes to amateurs, avoiding trouble is the more important than either distance or accuracy.

Hitting a ball OB, into the woods, or into a lake is costly. If you are inept in hitting from the rough, sand, or other hazard, then avoiding them becomes important.

[rb72]

Golf is simply a game of distance and accuracy. Seriously, that's it. You've gotta cover 400 yards and eventually get the ball into a very small hole. Distance and accuracy both matter… so even if accuracy was twice as important as distance, something that accounts for 33% of the game is pretty "important." That answers the topic question, does it not?

Plus, it turns out that accuracy is NOT twice as important. So…

You can't answer that question generally.

The question posed is "is distance important to amateurs." The answer is yes. Generally speaking, it's also slightly more important than accuracy, but everyone has to judge this for themselves.

Again, all covered in LSW. And no, it doesn't say "MOAR DISTANCE!" It handles it the same way it handles every other decision you must make regarding what shot to play. You should buy a copy.

That guy doesn't really exist. Not like you seem to think he does.

I think you'd be surprised. In my experience, that's not the case at all. If you're a higher handicapper, (12+), it's better than even money that if you're bad with your driver, you're as bad with your 3W. Smaller clubface, ball teed up closer to the ground, and only an inch or two shorter? Yeah, a bit more loft, but again, a much smaller clubface.

Hasn't been my experience at all. Heck, I and several of the PGA guys I play with would rather bunt a driver off the first tee than start the day with a 3W because it's got a bigger clubface… :)

That's just making stuff up. But, you stepped into a nice little trap. Mark Broadie has actually charted thousands of rounds of golfers of all ability levels. He pulled all of their data (where they hit each shot, their score, etc.), then simulated rounds with golfers of different ability levels, and produced this chart:

So let's go back to your example.

Let's assume the person in your trial gains 2° of accuracy and loses only 20 yards instead of the 25 you've given him. Since a PGA Tour golfer is about +/- 3.5°, an 80 golfer is about +/-5.5° or so, 90 is about 6.5, and 100 is about 7.5°, note that the 2° we're giving them is a significant increase in accuracy from hitting their 3W).

Golfer

Strokes Saved Accuracy

Strokes Lost Distance

Strokes Total

PGA Tour

2 * 0.8 = 1.6

-0.8

+0.8

80 Golfer

2 * 0.9 = 1.8

-1.3

+0.5

90 Golfer

2 * 1.0 = 2.0

-2.3

-0.3

100 Golfer

2 * 1.1 = 2.2

-2.7

-0.5

Contrary to your position that accuracy is more important to higher handicappers, the chart demonstrates the exact opposite: accuracy is more important (relatively) to the better player. It's never more important than distance when measured this way (1° versus 20 yards), despite the fact that 20 yards is a significantly smaller improvement than a degree (let alone two) of accuracy gained.

Is accuracy important?

Nobody is saying it's not.

But generally, distance is a little bit more important.

The upside: improving at your technique in general improves both.

As I said above, golf is simply a game of these two factors: you have to hit the ball far and accurately. It's basically a two-variable problem repeated 18 times. And, when you consider that golf is really only those two factors, distance has the edge. It's not an 80/20 edge or something. It might not even be 60/40. But it's in the lead, and thus, to answer the question… it's very important.

Everyone's free to have their own opinions, but Mark Broadie's got actual data on this from thousands of rounds of regular golfers, and nobody has (nor can they, really) countered this. Y'all can create hypotheticals (though as shown above even those can blow up in your face - @rb72 can you admit this?), but you're just literally making stuff up based on what you think your experiences have been.

I'll say that again: You're just making stuff up based on what you think your experiences have been.

You know how people are unreliable witnesses? They'll say the guy had a black cap on when it was red, and that he was 6'3 when he was 5'7" and stuff? Well, the same kind of blindness affects golfers. I've had a guy not breaking 90 tell me he'd be scratch with a better mental game. I've had someone ask me in all seriousness if he could make it to the PGA Tour when he'd yet to win a city championship. That's not to say you're all wildly off base, but you're unreliable witnesses to say the least.

Is accuracy important? Yes.

In general, is distance slightly more important to the amateur golfer? Yes.

Does this necessarily apply to single examples and hypotheticals? No.

Wow, okay accusing me of making stuff up is just ridiculous. I proposed a method of experimenting and I recounted my own experience. No reasonable person could possibly interpret that as "making stuff up". I certainly can't argue with your assessment of accuracy with the 3 wood as compared to the driver, since that, as I said, actually reflects my own experience, but I was always under the impression that the conventional wisdom was that if you're having trouble with your driver, keep it in the bag and use a 3 wood or 4 wood off the tee. I always thought that I was one of the few people that didn't work for. But apparently my personal experience IS in fact unusual in that I have found a way of keeping my driver in play that will lose about 20 yards but gain accuracy to an extent that it does in fact improve my scores. So obviously that increase in accuracy (dispersion) (assuming the table above is correct) is significantly greater than 2 degrees. And BTW I have the book and I have read it and frankly find that most of it doesn't apply to my game. Sorry.

[boogielicious]

But what if zombies attack every ball in the rough?  Then accuracy is way more important.

[GHIN0011458]

I think im going to test this theory about more distance being more important next time I go play.Im going to play as I normally do except after I hit my 2nd shot im going to move up 30 yards and drop a ball and play that one too and see how different my scores will be between the two.Im pretty confident in my situation it wont be no more improvement than 2 strokes possibly.To better golfers absolutely hitting it farther off tee will help them but when you get to higher handicappers I don't think it will prove much difference without better ball striking.

Just make sure that you throw it 30 yards on line of path not 30 yards up in the fairway. So if you were hitting a hook or a slice make sure you follow the flight- if it puts you into trouble or hazard you have to deal with it.

[Somerset Simon]

Extra distance will undoubtedly lower your scores on courses with very little rough and other hazards.

But, certainly in the UK where I play, there are very few courses that satisfy this condition.

Most courses in the UK, you get 10 yards of semi-rough, then you're into deep rough, trees, heather, or OOB.

To make a good score on most UK courses, you absolutely must be accurate enough to stay within 10 yards of the fairway.

Most 18 handicappers cannot shoot low scores on UK courses not because they can't reach the greens in regulation, but because they cannot reliably keep it in play.

My dad is a very typical 15 handicap. If he added 30 yards without any improvement in accuracy, there is no way he would shoot lower scores. He would be slightly closer to the green on the 4 or 5 holes where he hits the fairway, but on all the other holes he would just be even deeper in the rough, making lots more double and triple bogeys.

Furthermore, all this talk about statistics and correlation between distance and lower scores is absolute nonsense because it's comparing apples and oranges (each individual player being a different fruit).

The question is not whether players who hit the ball further shoot lower scores. (Of course they do, on average.)

The question is whether a typical amateur would shoot lower scores if they had more distance.

The answer depends on what course they are playing and whether the benefits of being closer to the green when they hit the fairway would outweigh the penalty of being deeper in the rough when they miss the fairway.

If your fairway percentage is high, then the benefits of extra distance clearly outweigh the penalties.

If your fairway percentage is low, then the opposite is true.

My belief is that the vast majority of amateurs (of all handicap ranges) do NOT have a high enough fairway percentage for the benefits of extra distance to outweigh the penalties.

Certainly not on most UK courses, which tend to have a very high penalty for going more than 10 yards off the fairway.

Improving your accuracy will certainly improve your score on every course.

Improving your distance might improve your score on some courses.

Simon

[iacas]

Wow, okay accusing me of making stuff up is just ridiculous.

It's not an accusation; just a simple statement of fact. You made it up. You created a hypothetical scenario that you thought (perhaps incorrectly) would suit the position in which you've dug yourself a hole, and that's the simple truth of it. You made it up. You created it. It's a hypothetical of your own devising.

No reasonable person could possibly interpret that as "making stuff up".

You said "Let's assume the case of…" and then made up that case. It may be based on what you believe your experiences to be, but you made it up. Your mythical golfer did some things like hit 3 balls OB when hitting the driver but, miraculously, 0 when hitting his 3W. You made it up because you felt it supported your position, when it seems likely that it proves the opposite.

I certainly can't argue with your assessment of accuracy with the 3 wood as compared to the driver, since that, as I said, actually reflects my own experience, but I was always under the impression that the conventional wisdom was that if you're having trouble with your driver, keep it in the bag and use a 3 wood or 4 wood off the tee.

Conventional wisdom is wrong pretty damn often. I've personally helped bust so many of those myths that there are almost too many to name.

I am not interested in hypotheticals or made-up examples. That's exactly the kind of stuff that leads to conventional wisdom not being investigated, not being put under the microscope, not being picked apart to see if it holds, but rather, to blind acceptance.

But apparently my personal experience IS in fact unusual in that I have found a way of keeping my driver in play that will lose about 20 yards but gain accuracy to an extent that it does in fact improve my scores.

For the billionth time (may be an exaggeration :P), this thread is not about any single data point, and to you directly, you can't prove that you didn't also simultaneously improve something else. Conventional wisdom, our personal recollections, etc. are wrong all the time.

And if the book doesn't "apply" to your game, you're not playing golf. From what little you've shared here (wild but longer, now more accurate giving up 20 yards) the Decision Maps certainly apply. Can't be hitting into dark eggs with large Shot Zones. SV, etc. all applies too. It's not the topic of this thread, but there's a thread in the Reading Room to which you can contribute.

Extra distance will undoubtedly lower your scores on courses with very little rough and other hazards.

But, certainly in the UK where I play, there are very few courses that satisfy this condition.

Most courses in the UK, you get 10 yards of semi-rough, then you're into deep rough, trees, heather, or OOB.

To make a good score on most UK courses, you absolutely must be accurate enough to stay within 10 yards of the fairway.

Most 18 handicappers cannot shoot low scores on UK courses not because they can't reach the greens in regulation, but because they cannot reliably keep it in play.

Let's see some actual data on this, because otherwise, you're just sharing what you think is true.

Improving your distance might improve your score on some courses.

Distance will improve your score on every course, even if the sole reason for it is that you get to hit less club in order to be just as accurate, then you get to hit longer clubs farther when distance provides an advantage.

It's basically impossible for you to design a course where distance is not an advantage. Even if you assume that there's OB that prevents a long hitter from hitting driver, he's probably more accurate with his 3W than a shorter hitter who is going all out with his driver to get the same distances. And then he has less clubs into the greens, too.

---

There's more to reality than shadows on the wall, people. Help me out here Plato.