Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[FireDragon76]

Of course it makes perfect sense that there is a positive correlation with distance and accuracy- better golfers should make better, squarer contact which leads to better distance and accuracy, since off-center hits don't transfer energy as well and don't travel as straight.

It seems to me saying things like "distance is more important than accuracy, based on all this Shotlink data we've mined", is at best, a huge generalization of limited usefulness to the average individual golfer.   When words like "scientific" get thrown around, just keep in mind the methods used to come to the conclusions of Golfmetrics come from the same fools who engineered the Great Recession by becoming so steeped in spurious mathematical models without any intuitive understanding of reality.    There are lies, damn lies, and statistics, after all.

You can see golfers that drive into the woods as mere hackers but they make up the majority of golfers and for the average player, getting much beyond that ability is unrealistic.  I was referring more to what can be done in terms of short game and course management, rather than specifically trying to hone ones full swing- which is not as easy to do.  Golf is a hard game-  perpetuating misleading expectations won't make it any easier, and rather than see it as an issue of lazy hackers I see it more as an issue of a golf culture that may be setting unrealistic expectations.

[AllSetGolfsport]

I believe golfers should consider each hole layout and their personal current form, to plan their approach to the hole. If it is a Par3 180m hole and with bunkers waiting front, and right side of the approach, it would be wise to get a club that can land the ball towards the left clear of both hazards.

Similar a golfer who cannot manage a straight drive, should select alternative club like a 3-5W or even a long iron which he has confidence for straighter shots - when in a narrow fairway with trees, thick bushes or canal on the sides.

Especially in situations where you have to clear a water or thick rough hazard to reach a green, it is prudent to select one club distance better. If unsure because of bad lie or obstacle in between, it is better to play safe landing at a position offering an easier next shot to the hole.

It will be foolhardy simply considering using a driver every time it is a Par4-5 hole.

Even for consistent amateur golfers, 5% of the shots may be a blotched shot.

Avoiding hazards by planning well saves stroke.

Of course distance is important if you can do it consistently and control the direction.

But it can often create problem if off target.

[9424tm]

@FireDragon76 I think that a lot of people are using the scenario of one or the other. In other words you can't have both. But, I became more accurate as I became longer. In part because to hit it longer I had to make better contact. While making better contact I gained more predictability. If you are looking for quick strokes to shave, then sure, short game gains are much easier to come by. But the idea is to improve over the long haul. That will require full swing development. But your original question was "Is distance important for amateurs", and the answer is absolutely. Put in a little work on the short game but budget most of your practice for the long game.

[FireDragon76]

In the short game, though, you are developing clubface control, hitting on plane, getting the weight forward (especially important with chipping), all those other things that are important for a full swing.  In every other sport or activity that requires skill, a person doesn't start out diving right into it... why is it this way with golf?

[iacas]

In the short game, though, you are developing clubface control, hitting on plane, getting the weight forward (especially important with chipping), all those other things that are important for a full swing.  In every other sport or activity that requires skill, a person doesn't start out diving right into it... why is it this way with golf?

Because you have to cover 350 yards before you get to use your short game or putt.

Plus, the short game's very different. The clubface control is different, the plane is different, the weight is often static and forward rather than getting there dynamically, etc.

Distance is important at every level of the game.

[mmoan2]

Of course it makes perfect sense that there is a positive correlation with distance and accuracy- better golfers should make better, squarer contact which leads to better distance and accuracy, since off-center hits don't transfer energy as well and don't travel as straight.

It seems to me saying things like "distance is more important than accuracy, based on all this Shotlink data we've mined", is at best, a huge generalization of limited usefulness to the average individual golfer.   When words like "scientific" get thrown around, just keep in mind the methods used to come to the conclusions of Golfmetrics come from the same fools who engineered the Great Recession by becoming so steeped in spurious mathematical models without any intuitive understanding of reality.    There are lies, damn lies, and statistics, after all.

You can see golfers that drive into the woods as mere hackers but they make up the majority of golfers and for the average player, getting much beyond that ability is unrealistic.  I was referring more to what can be done in terms of short game and course management, rather than specifically trying to hone ones full swing- which is not as easy to do.  Golf is a hard game-  perpetuating misleading expectations won't make it any easier, and rather than see it as an issue of lazy hackers I see it more as an issue of a golf culture that may be setting unrealistic expectations.

I don;t know why you would be interested in being an "average" golfer. If you like golf, and you are willing to work at it, and have average athletic ability and coordination, you can develop a decent full swing over the course of a year with good, productive practice. The average golfer you speak of usually plays once a week, twice tops, and uses practice to rake and beat balls on the driving range without a clue how to practice. Just stand back and look at a busy driving range one day and ask yourself what the "average" golfer is doing. Better yet, ask a random person what they're working on. I did that one day on the putting green just because I was curious and bored. I got one sensible answer from maybe 15 people.

It's not unrealistic to expect the ability to hit fairly straight shots and shoot in the 80s consistently. I did it in two years with much less practice and play than I would've liked, and I actually quit golf after a year in my early 20s until I was 36 because I couldn't hit the ball straight. I could easily lose 12 balls in one 18 hole round. I was afraid to hurt people in the other fairways. I don;t think golf culture sets unrealistic expectations. I think it's something that requires patience and practice, but most people have none of the first and therefore fail to get anything out of the second. Honestly, if you plan on remaining static with your progress, maybe you should hit nothing longer than a 5 iron, play 6000 yard courses, and try to become a short game wizard. Not only is that unnecessary though, it's BOOORING!!!! Good luck!

[JetFan1983]

It seems to me saying things like "distance is more important than accuracy, based on all this Shotlink data we've mined", is at best, a huge generalization of limited usefulness to the average individual golfer.

It's a generalization, but a good one. It's useful to the individual golfer because of how much it stresses that we work on our full swing motion to see the most gains in our scores. We want to separate ourselves from the competition, and the best way to do that is to hit it farther, straighter and on the green more often than whoever we have to face off against, whether that be against an actual opponent, our past best scores, or the golf course itself.

As your swing improves, you'll gain more speed, you'll get better contact, and you'll hit it farther and straighter. This matters a lot. We can't stress that to you enough.

When words like "scientific" get thrown around, just keep in mind the methods used to come to the conclusions of Golfmetrics come from the same fools who engineered the Great Recession by becoming so steeped in spurious mathematical models without any intuitive understanding of reality.    There are lies, damn lies, and statistics, after all.

It's really not complicated. Hitting the ball well (straight, far) matters a lot.

This is your golf swing:

You could have the greatest short game in the world, but it's not going to matter if it takes you four or five shots to reach the green.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics, after all.

We're not lying to you. I promise you, we are not lying to you. Hitting it far matters a lot. It's a massive advantage.

Now, this isn't to say short game and putting and all that don't matter. It all matters. But being able to smash to ball down the fairway and then knocking it on the green, is the biggest advantage you can have in this game.

You can see golfers that drive into the woods as mere hackers but they make up the majority of golfers and for the average player, getting much beyond that ability is unrealistic.

It's not unrealistic if you care about golf and are willing to put in the years practicing it can take to get beyond average.

I was referring more to what can be done in terms of short game and course management, rather than specifically trying to hone ones full swing- which is not as easy to do.

You're right. Improving the full swing is not easy to do. That's what makes gains in that area so prized and coveted. Like I said, short game and course management matter a lot too. It all matters, man. But how far you hit it matters the most in terms of separating yourself from the pack.

Golf is a hard game.

Totally agree.

Perpetuating misleading expectations won't make it any easier, and rather than see it as an issue of lazy hackers I see it more as an issue of a golf culture that may be setting unrealistic expectations.

Given your currently golf swing, yes, it's unrealistic for you to ever think you could be a bomber. But could you hit it a helluva lot farther than you are now? Yes. No doubt about it.

But the generalized golf culture you refer to actually  (and in our opinion, incorrectly) places more emphasis on short game, putting and accuracy. Those of us advocating that distance matters the most are something of a minority in the golfing world (though that's changing by the day).

And frankly, we're not asking you to go out and start smashing the ball. That doesn't happen over night. You have to build up your swing piece by piece, here and there, over a long period of time. As you progress, learn more, practice more… you'll gradually hit it farther and straighter. Like Erik said, they go hand-in-hand.

Anyway. I'm just trying to help you understand this better. Keep in mind how new you are to this game and how long it can take to get decent at it.

[chasm]

You can see golfers that drive into the woods as mere hackers but they make up the majority of golfers and for the average player, getting much beyond that ability is unrealistic.  I was referring more to what can be done in terms of short game and course management, rather than specifically trying to hone ones full swing- which is not as easy to do.  Golf is a hard game-  perpetuating misleading expectations won't make it any easier, and rather than see it as an issue of lazy hackers I see it more as an issue of a golf culture that may be setting unrealistic expectations.

What this argument boils down to is this. "If you're not interesting in practising to become a competent golfer, you may as well not try to hit it very far".

It doesn't matter how great your short game is if you aren't anywhere near the green. I'm a very "average golfer", and in my case, at least, it is incorrect to say that  improving the short game is easier than improving one's full swing. Hitting it better off the tee is where I saw the earliest and biggest gains when I decided I wanted to improve.

[DrvFrShow]

I think we can get caught up in the esoteric part of the numbers and lose sight of some of the basics. @ the OP I wouldn't even worry about distance right now. My focus would be on learning how to hit the ball well. The distance will come as you learn to hit the ball better. That takes time and practice.

I wouldn't even look at numbers and statistics right now. This thread got way off on them. Numbers numbers numbers.... math math math. It's meaningless until you can hit the ball better.

I will say this. If I couldn't hit the ball as far as I do, I would not have broken 100 this year. I'd still be playing around 110 or more. Being able to hit the ball a good distance has made getting the score down easier. The women in my club were cheering me on all season watching my handicap drop as I got more control over my shots and learned more about how to play the game. I still make a lot of mistakes that cost me a lot of strokes on the course. But if I duff a shot on a par 5, knowing that I can hit my next shot 190-200 yds with a hybrid sure makes moving onto the next shot a lot easier in my mind. I've duffed a drive on a par 5, then hit two 5 woods, hit a lob shot onto the green and two putted for a bogey. But it's a lot better to hit a 230 drive + 200 hybrid + a wedge shot and two putt on that same hole. So real world. Distance matters.

Short game matters, too. Short game is easy. Practice that and you can shave a bunch of strokes off your game. But I play with women who have fantastic short games. I would love to have their short games. They're as good as some pros with their short games. No they don't do the fancy shmancy stuff Mickelson does, but they can get out of a bunker in 1 and put the ball in good position. They can chip and put the ball near the hole or in the hole. And they can putt well. But they shoot consistently around 88-92 because they don't have the distance game. If they had the distance game they'd be scary.

So you can't say it doesn't matter because it does. You'll reach a point where you can't get any better without it. I got to where I am because of it. Distance + a decent but not great short game - control - consistency = where I'm at. When the control and consistency improve, then it's learn how to play the courses better.

[turtleback]

It might be easier to improve accuracy by two degrees rather than add twenty yards to a drive.

But I think what they are saying is that if you improve your swing fundamentals you might well (and should) end up doing both, getting the 20 yards AND the improved accuracy.  It is not either/or.  If you improve your accuracy by 2 degrees because you are hitting the ball more flushly on a better swing path with a better angle of attack, your distance will almost certainly be significantly better as well.

In the short game, though, you are developing clubface control, hitting on plane, getting the weight forward (especially important with chipping), all those other things that are important for a full swing.  In every other sport or activity that requires skill, a person doesn't start out diving right into it... why is it this way with golf?

Some instructors do it one way other the other way.  If I recall correctly (and I have already recalled something incorrectly recently so be warned), Harvey Pennick started Ben Crenshaw and Tom Kite out at the hole and worked backyards to the short game to the full swing.  Jack Grout told a a young boy named Nicklaus to belt it as far as he could - they'd get it straightened out later.  Both worked.  Jack was very very long and accurate and had a mediocre short game.  Neither Crenshaw nor Kite was known for their distance yet were known as excellent at the shortgame and putting.

The interesting thing is to speculate as to whether the approach of the instructor is what caused the pattern of the games they each developed.  If Pennick had been Jack's coach would Jack have been shorter, but a short game whiz?  Could Crenshaw and Kite have been big hitters if they had Grout as a coach and got the same advice as Jack?  We'll never know for sure but who knows?

Based on the results of Erik's book and the importance of distance, and if the approach of the coach did really have a significant effect on the pattern of the player's ultimate game, then I think Grout's approach may be the preferable one.

[parallax]

It shouldn't throw up a red flag. If it throws up a red flag to you, that means that you either don't understand that it's a generalization, or you believe that the person saying it doesn't recognize that it's a generalization.

Golfers will generally shoot lower scores by hitting the ball farther with the same accuracy.

Golfers will generally shoot lower scores by hitting the ball more accurately with the same distance.

Both of those are pretty accurate statements for just about everyone*, are they not?

Which one matters (accuracy or distance) more in that instant depends on a whole ton of stuff:

The player

The course

The actual gains to be expected for distance or accuracy

"The player" is a fairly nuanced thing too, because it includes their ability level, how long each would take, what their work ethic is like, the quality of the instruction they have at their disposal, their equipment, how well fit they are, what their potential is and will be in x months, the relative strengths of the other parts of their game.

Seriously, if someone completely sucks out of the rough, they probably don't want to chase more distance for the short term. Long term maybe they want to fix their ability to hit from the rough and then go after more distance… but that's the point: there are too many variables when discussing the individual.

When I'm working with an individual, I'm happy to customize the plan for them, as I have some more information. I see more of the variables. That information is not available when discussing "amateur golfers" (again, a group) by and large on a website where anyone can visit.

As for explaining, I'll decline, as it's off topic for this thread (which I'm taking as talking about the group known as "amateur golfers" and thus am giving generalizations), and I have little interest in starting a new thread on the topic. You're welcome to, if you'd like.

I say "just about everyone" only because someone might say "what if you have a golfer who routinely blades all of his 95-yard shot OB and his increased distance gives him four more of those shots each round, which more than offset the gains from his added distance on the other holes?"

I think that would be a stupid thing to say, but in my experience, people think it's a valid retort and that they "win" or "prove me wrong" by saying it, so… I say things like "just about everyone."

The OP is clearly speaking of specific examples... he cites them in his post.

It is not a revelation that if you hit the ball further and straighter you will hit more greens. But it is also not a revelation (even though it is often contested on this site) that there are a lot of players who sacrifice distance for accuracy and score well.

I was "teeing up" the more broad question about how group statistics are helpful for individual golfers (the ecological fallacy) because it seems to be the basis for your book (based upon the limited information I have seen here... I hope I am wrong). I would purchase the book if I was sure that statistics were not applied in this manner, or if there was a good reason that they are still helpful, hence my question.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

It shouldn't throw up a red flag. If it throws up a red flag to you, that means that you either don't understand that it's a generalization, or you believe that the person saying it doesn't recognize that it's a generalization.

Golfers will generally shoot lower scores by hitting the ball farther with the same accuracy.

Golfers will generally shoot lower scores by hitting the ball more accurately with the same distance.

Both of those are pretty accurate statements for just about everyone*, are they not?

Which one matters (accuracy or distance) more in that instant depends on a whole ton of stuff:

The player

The course

The actual gains to be expected for distance or accuracy

"The player" is a fairly nuanced thing too, because it includes their ability level, how long each would take, what their work ethic is like, the quality of the instruction they have at their disposal, their equipment, how well fit they are, what their potential is and will be in x months, the relative strengths of the other parts of their game.

Seriously, if someone completely sucks out of the rough, they probably don't want to chase more distance for the short term. Long term maybe they want to fix their ability to hit from the rough and then go after more distance… but that's the point: there are too many variables when discussing the individual.

When I'm working with an individual, I'm happy to customize the plan for them, as I have some more information. I see more of the variables. That information is not available when discussing "amateur golfers" (again, a group) by and large on a website where anyone can visit.

As for explaining, I'll decline, as it's off topic for this thread (which I'm taking as talking about the group known as "amateur golfers" and thus am giving generalizations), and I have little interest in starting a new thread on the topic. You're welcome to, if you'd like.

I say "just about everyone" only because someone might say "what if you have a golfer who routinely blades all of his 95-yard shot OB and his increased distance gives him four more of those shots each round, which more than offset the gains from his added distance on the other holes?"

I think that would be a stupid thing to say, but in my experience, people think it's a valid retort and that they "win" or "prove me wrong" by saying it, so… I say things like "just about everyone."

The OP is clearly speaking of specific examples... he cites them in his post.

It is not a revelation that if you hit the ball further and straighter you will hit more greens. But it is also not a revelation (even though it is often contested on this site) that there are a lot of players who sacrifice distance for accuracy and score well.

I was "teeing up" the more broad question about how group statistics are helpful for individual golfers (the ecological fallacy) because it seems to be the basis for your book (based upon the limited information I have seen here... I hope I am wrong). I would purchase the book if I was sure that statistics were not applied in this manner, or if there was a good reason that they are still helpful, hence my question.

The OP is a novice golfer and has neither distance or accuracy in his game yet.  His example was anecdotal and may have been a one time experience.  From my experience, the golfer who hits it further will score better for the most part on most holes. Lowest Score Wins is not anecdotal.  It uses both Tour statistics and testing results from amateurs as the basis for conclusions.  You should actually spend the $30 instead of guessing what the book may say.

I cannot think of anyone I play with who is a short hitter and scores better than other players that are much longer.  My best friend hits his drives 30 yards longer than I do on average. I have a better short game by far.  He still will score 3-4 strokes lower than I do because of his length off the tee.

[iacas]

@parallax , most of your post is off topic, so I'm responding to it in a spoiler. If you have more to say about this, PM me or something. If you have more to say about the topic of "how important is distance to amateurs," post here.

The OP is clearly speaking of specific examples... he cites them in his post.

Yes, but none of us were there "when [he] played golf last time" so it's silly to think that we can speak to the specifics. Plus, he's what you call an unreliable narrator: who is he to judge whether their swings "seemed decent" or not?

It took him 3-4 shots to get an approach shot to the green (whether that means it took him 3-4 shots to get near the green, or get to a spot from which he could hit his next shot toward the green with reasonable hope of getting there I don't know).

If the OP wants to discuss his game, and limit discussion to that, then that's almost pointless. As @boogielicious said, he's so new to the game that he still whiffs from time to time. He needs to get better before any of this specific type of stuff about distance and accuracy matters to him at all. Discussing his game in this thread would be a complete non-starter. He'll gain both accuracy and distance, and should gain both quickly… There's little point in discussing that, though.

It is not a revelation that if you hit the ball further and straighter you will hit more greens. But it is also not a revelation (even though it is often contested on this site) that there are a lot of players who sacrifice distance for accuracy and score well.

I've said a few times now that there are certainly specifics, examples, and hypotheticals. I've pointed out that those bubbles are so large you can have a shorter, less accurate 80s golfer than a longer, more accurate 100s golfer.

But please tell me how to, within a reasonable amount of time, address every possible variation and specific within the context of a discussion forum anyone can read?

I was "teeing up" the more broad question about how group statistics are helpful for individual golfers (the ecological fallacy) because it seems to be the basis for your book (based upon the limited information I have seen here... I hope I am wrong). I would purchase the book if I was sure that statistics were not applied in this manner, or if there was a good reason that they are still helpful, hence my question.

It's off topic for this thread. I told you, you could start another thread, but I imagine there'd be little discussion in it, because the answer is that you evaluate yourself and make the best use of the knowledge you have.

A) If you hit the ball farther with the same accuracy, you'll shave strokes.

B) If you hit the ball more accurately with the same distance, you'll shave strokes.

Those two statements are true for just about everyone, with the caveat that you still have to apply the strategies properly to maximize their use.

It's also true for almost everyone that A will shave more strokes than B, depending primarily on the amounts of each.

You're certainly welcome to make the assumptions you're making, but that's what they are: assumptions. The book gives individual players methods to determine the specific choices they should make to benefit their specific game. It does so in a generalized way, though, because again it's simply not possible, feasible, or even sane to make a book that specifically addresses each specific scenario and golfer. It could quite literally be infinitely long.

You're a nine handicapper. If you don't find ten things in the book worth the price of admission, you'd be the first (or you're incredibly stingy with $30).

And man, c'mon, enough with the "ecological fallacy" stuff. If you can figure out how to do what you are asking of me and others on this forum, you will become a billionaire with that technology.

[natureboy]

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.102.2014.html

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.2014.html

Longer = Straighter?

David Toms.. most accurate off the tee = 173rd in Driving Distance

Bubba Watson.. longest off the tee = 102nd in accuracy

Rory McIlroy.. 3rd in distance, 108 in accuracy

There are plenty of examples of shorter hitters winning and there are plenty of examples of longer players winning. Like I said, depends on the conditions, course, etc.

@iacas I think you need to define "Longer hitters". If we took two people who both had 90 mph swing speeds and one of them hit the ball 250 and the other one is hitting it 200 then yes the person who is hitting 250 is making better ball contact and is going to hit it straighter and can be considered a "long hitter" for the swing speed they have because they are reaching their maximum potential for distance and are hitting the driver on the screws.

OR do you mean if we take someone who is 110 mph swing speed and hits it 260 vs a 90 mph swing speed that hits it 250 the 110 mph player is better? The 110 mph player has more potential yes, but is not more accurate although they hit it further. So "longer hitter" means they are reaching a maximum potential for distance for their swing speed correct?

Why aren't the long drivers on tour?

Just trying to understand it all.

The difficulty of making it to the PGA tour has pre-selected those who have optimal combinations of distance and accuracy. Rory is not as accurate as the average PGA player, but more accurate than most who can average over 300 with driver. Toms is not as long as the average PGA player, but longer than most who can get the same accuracy from the tee. That said, in 2013 Toms was near the bottom (154th vs Rory at 24th) in 'effective' driving distance among pros even with his higher fairways ranking. Toms kept up with the pack with top third approach play (63rd vs Rory at 17th).

[FireDragon76]

I know that you will disagree, but much of the disagreement seems to come from the "ecological fallacy" that seems to be applied here. It is one thing to use group statistics for making generalities about groups, it is another to apply those same statistics to individuals. It is just as fallacious as using anecdotal evidence to make general comments about groups.

I like the graph above, because it shows the huge range of accuracy/distance that most amateur golfers fall under. It explains why so many people who play golf witness short accurate players score better than long and wild players, while the group statistic shows the opposite trend.

You've summed up how I intuitively understood the problem I have with using statistics in this manner but wasn't able to articulate it in those words.

I've read at least two books on Golfmetrics.  It's a fascinating subject, but some of the conclusions from it seem premature- the data is really complicated.  If anything, when I look at the data it made me appreciate more how important it is to practice short putting (and it explains why I've always found short puts in golf simulators so strangely frustrating:  missing from 20 feet makes sense, but why does it seem so easy to miss from only 5 feet?).

Others have suggested I actually read Lowest Score Wins, and I consider myself an open-minded person and I'd be willing to do that but the price for the book is steep.  I don't spend a lot of money on golf, let alone golf reading.   Spending time at the driving range a few times a week is my biggest golf expenditure.

In my own case I feel putting more emphasis on the short game is helping my driving, but when I first started out I ignored pitching and chipping altogether.  For one thing, short game practice is cheap- you can pitch and chip balls for hours on a pitching green and most golfers just seem to ignore that area altogether.  A lot of people take those stick-and-ball coordination skills for granted, but that is something you learn practicing those short shots ( that's particularly important if, like me, you have minimal athletics background- the only hand eye coordination I got as a kid was video games and a little bit of tossing a ball back and forth with a mitt- I was horrible at stick and ball games, badmitton was about my limit).   And I feel like the sensitivity I pick up trying to chip balls close to the hole might be translating to greater sensitivity to a moving clubhead on the driving range when you start feeling the club as an extension of your body rather than some foreign object you merely hold on to.   And lastly, its easier on your body because things are moving less, so that can translate into longer practice.

[boogielicious]

You've summed up how I intuitively understood the problem I have with using statistics in this manner but wasn't able to articulate it in those words.

I've read at least two books on Golfmetrics.  It's a fascinating subject, but some of the conclusions from it seem premature- the data is really complicated.  If anything, when I look at the data it made me appreciate more how important it is to practice short putting (and it explains why I've always found short puts in golf simulators so strangely frustrating:  missing from 20 feet makes sense, but why does it seem so easy to miss from only 5 feet?).

Others have suggested I actually read Lowest Score Wins, and I consider myself an open-minded person and I'd be willing to do that but the price for the book is steep.  I don't spend a lot of money on golf, let alone golf reading.   Spending time at the driving range a few times a week is my biggest golf expenditure.

In my own case I feel putting more emphasis on the short game is helping my driving, but when I first started out I ignored pitching and chipping altogether.  For one thing, short game practice is cheap- you can pitch and chip balls for hours on a pitching green and most golfers just seem to ignore that area altogether.  A lot of people take those stick-and-ball coordination skills for granted, but that is something you learn practicing those short shots ( that's particularly important if, like me, you have minimal athletics background- the only hand eye coordination I got as a kid was video games and a little bit of tossing a ball back and forth with a mitt- I was horrible at stick and ball games, badmitton was about my limit).   And I feel like the sensitivity I pick up trying to chip balls close to the hole might be translating to greater sensitivity to a moving clubhead on the driving range when you start feeling the club as an extension of your body rather than some foreign object you merely hold on to.   And lastly, its easier on your body because things are moving less, so that can translate into longer practice.

You have two books on "golfmetrics" but are not interested in a third book that will help you improve your overall game?  I have maybe 12 to 15 books on golf and none are golfmetric books (and I am an engineer).  Practicing short game can be fun and will help you somewhat.  But if you really want to enjoy the whole game of golf, you need to work on the long game .  You seem to like to ignore advice other forum members are giving you, which is very confusing.  Most folks come to this site because they want to improve at golf.

[Morocco Mako]

I have read Every Shot Counts. I think he spends too much time on numbers and not enough time of strategy or defining simple and practical "rules of thumb" amateur golfers can use.

As far as I can tell, most distance advocates miss the nuances of the distance vs accuracy argument. It's distance WITH A STRATEGY that trumps accuracy. Without the strategy, just focusing on distance will make things worse.

The example he uses is a long fairway with trees down the right side and and expanse of rough on the left side. He says the target off the tee for most golfers should be the left edge of the fairway. For higher handicap players the target should actually be several yards into the rough. That strategy, combined with focusing on distance off the tee is the combo that works.

Simply focusing on distance off the tee trying to hit it right down the middle of the fairway in that situation is a losing strategy compared to focusing on accuracy.

I'm afraid the "distance trumps accuracy" mantra starting to go around will become the new "drive for show, putt for dough." A catch-phrase that people will start blindly following.

[RandallT]

I have read Every Shot Counts. I think he spends too much time on numbers and not enough time of strategy or defining simple and practical "rules of thumb" amateur golfers can use.

As far as I can tell, most distance advocates miss the nuances of the distance vs accuracy argument. It's distance WITH A STRATEGY that trumps accuracy. Without the strategy, just focusing on distance will make things worse.

The example he uses is a long fairway with trees down the right side and and expanse of rough on the left side. He says the target off the tee for most golfers should be the left edge of the fairway. For higher handicap players the target should actually be several yards into the rough. That strategy, combined with focusing on distance off the tee is the combo that works.

Simply focusing on distance off the tee trying to hit it right down the middle of the fairway in that situation is a losing strategy compared to focusing on accuracy.

I'm afraid the "distance trumps accuracy" mantra starting to go around will become the new "drive for show, putt for dough." A catch-phrase that people will start blindly following.

If you take a look at "Lowest Score Wins," the idea is not actually that "distance trumps accuracy," but that shot zones must be incorporated into your strategy (and distance plays a big part of the shot zone, but not all). I think that to argue against the idea that "distance trumps accuracy" is a bit of a strawman . I think your argument above is very similar to the "shot zone "concept, actually. Here's an example thread on this: