Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[chasm]

Sounds familiar. Used to play with a bunch of older guys, rarely did you see a golfer break 90 once they were over eighty. One older guy I was really close to quit about 80 years old, had some vertigo issues but the biggest problem was he knew what shots to hit but couldn't anymore. A decent drive was 150. It was no fun for him shooting 95 all the time when he'd always been a 8-12 handicapper. Can't blame him.

Sure. But there are some pretty impressive stories, too. The oldest regular golfer at my club is 85. He was a 5-handicapper in his day, and can still hit the ball 200 yards and play to 15. Pretty amazing, really.

[rkim291968]

All aspects of golf is important to me.  I'd like to be more accurate with my shots for now.

[Lihu]

And they score lower.

My hypothesis:

If you took the population of players and made two subgroups; 1) those that drive 210 or less and, 2) those that drive 250 or more.

Subgroup 1 compared to group 2 on average; hasn't played as many lifetime rounds, hasn't taken as much instruction, hasn't practiced as much, hasn't practiced as effectively, doesn't play as frequently, isn't as athletic, isn't as tall, doesn't have as good of a short game, doesn't have as good of course strategy skills.

If all that is true, and I think it is, then of course someone who drives further scores lower.  And, it isn't only because they drive further.

Your range of distances is binary. You have scratch/single digit golfers on one side and everyone else on the other.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/64681/handicap-versus-clubhead-speed-driving-distance

I have about as many counter examples to what you just stated, I'm not sure where to begin. Here's a start:

1) 210 or less could be seniors in their 70+s who have played 40 years or more.

2) People have different natural abilities, so some get to scratch in 2 years with no instruction, some take 20 years with instruction to get to the single digits if ever.

3) Athletic? Not sure how to answer this, but I know a lot of dumpy looking people who drive the ball over 250.

4) Not as tall, I also know people from 5'4" (or less) to 6'10" who drive the ball about the same distances. Could taller people drive farther? Maybe, but so can many shorter people.

5) Strategy does not have that much to do with driving distance in my opinion.

[Aflighter]

Your range of distances is binary. You have scratch/single digit golfers on one side and everyone else on the other.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/64681/handicap-versus-clubhead-speed-driving-distance

I have about as many counter examples to what you just stated, I'm not sure where to begin. Here's a start:

1) 210 or less could be seniors in their 70+s who have played 40 years or more.

2) People have different natural abilities, so some get to scratch in 2 years with no instruction, some take 20 years with instruction to get to the single digits if ever.

3) Athletic? Not sure how to answer this, but I know a lot of dumpy looking people who drive the ball over 250.

4) Not as tall, I also know people from 5'4" (or less) to 6'10" who drive the ball about the same distances. Could taller people drive farther? Maybe, but so can many shorter people.

5) Strategy does not have that much to do with driving distance in my opinion.

I agree with everything you wrote there except number 1.Im only 41 and most of the time I only hit it 210-218 off tee with driver.I guess your right somewhat that most 70+ only hit it 210.I may be the most accurate driver there is as an amateur but may be because I cant hit if far no matter what I do.

[No Mulligans]

@Lihu

You're cherry picking specific examples or subgroups.  That's just being argumentative. You could come to any conclusion you want if you do that.

Let's stick to the whole population.

Lihu wrote: " You have scratch/single digit golfers on one side and everyone else on the other."

That is exactly my point.  The better golfers are on one side, and there are a lot more attributes the better golfers on average have in common than just driving distance.

[newtogolf]

And they score lower.

My hypothesis:

If you took the population of players and made two subgroups; 1) those that drive 210 or less and, 2) those that drive 250 or more.

Subgroup 1 compared to group 2 on average; hasn't played as many lifetime rounds, hasn't taken as much instruction, hasn't practiced as much, hasn't practiced as effectively, doesn't play as frequently, isn't as athletic, isn't as tall, doesn't have as good of a short game, doesn't have as good of course strategy skills.

If all that is true, and I think it is, then of course someone who drives further scores lower.  And, it isn't only because they drive further.

I disagree with basis of your hypothesis in that your assumption on distance doesn't factor age or the fact there are different tees to compensate for distance.  A person that can't hit a drive past 210 shouldn't be playing the same tees as the guy that hits 250 or more.

I've played rounds with older guys that hit from the white tees and score in the high 70's and low 80's.  Age has cost them some distance so they adjust the tees they play to better fit their game but they are still very good golfers.

[Jeremie Boop]

And they score lower.

My hypothesis:

If you took the population of players and made two subgroups; 1) those that drive 210 or less and, 2) those that drive 250 or more.

Subgroup 1 compared to group 2 on average; hasn't played as many lifetime rounds, hasn't taken as much instruction, hasn't practiced as much, hasn't practiced as effectively, doesn't play as frequently, isn't as athletic, isn't as tall, doesn't have as good of a short game, doesn't have as good of course strategy skills.

If all that is true, and I think it is, then of course someone who drives further scores lower.  And, it isn't only because they drive further.

@Lihu

You're cherry picking specific examples or subgroups.  That's just being argumentative. You could come to any conclusion you want if you do that.

Let's stick to the whole population.

I would actually counter that as, other than maybe athleticism, you'd see a pretty eclectic mix in both sub groups. He's not being argumentative, imo, he's just pointing out the falsities in your post.

[No Mulligans]

I disagree with basis of your hypothesis in that your assumption on distance doesn't factor age or the fact there are different tees to compensate for distance.  A person that can't hit a drive past 210 shouldn't be playing the same tees as the guy that hits 250 or more.

I've played rounds with older guys that hit from the white tees and score in the high 70's and low 80's.  Age has cost them some distance so they adjust the tees they play to better fit their game but they are still very good golfers.

That's true, age would have to be factored out in some fashion.  Perhaps if you only looked at golfers in their 30s.

[Aflighter]

I disagree with basis of your hypothesis in that your assumption on distance doesn't factor age or the fact there are different tees to compensate for distance.  A person that can't hit a drive past 210 shouldn't be playing the same tees as the guy that hits 250 or more.

I've played rounds with older guys that hit from the white tees and score in the high 70's and low 80's.  Age has cost them some distance so they adjust the tees they play to better fit their game but they are still very good golfers.

Im sorry but that's a pretty stupid thing to say and one of the arguments on this thread.A guy who cant hit it over 210 shouldn't being playing same tees as 250 guy?Really?All your basing tees on his how far they drive ball.That guy who hits it 250 might not hit other clubs or chip or putt as well as the guy hitting it 210 and loses to the shorter hitter.Tees played are based on handicap and not how fa you hit your driver.

[chasm]

I disagree with basis of your hypothesis in that your assumption on distance doesn't factor age or the fact there are different tees to compensate for distance.  A person that can't hit a drive past 210 shouldn't be playing the same tees as the guy that hits 250 or more.

Speaking as an older golfer, I completely disagree with this. The whole point of the handicap system is to allow players of varying abilites to compete against one another. If you're a short hitter, your handicap will be higher to compensate. There's no need to shorten the course as well.

[newtogolf]

Im sorry but that's a pretty stupid thing to say and one of the arguments on this thread.A guy who cant hit it over 210 shouldn't being playing same tees as 250 guy?Really?All your basing tees on his how far they drive ball.That guy who hits it 250 might not hit other clubs or chip or putt as well as the guy hitting it 210 and loses to the shorter hitter.Tees played are based on handicap and not how fa you hit your driver.

I didn't mean they shouldn't be allowed, sorry if that was how it came across.  People should play whatever tees they like.

My point was that given the distance I hit my drives <250 I choose to not play from the tips at my home course.  I personally prefer to play from the blues where I am not as penalized for not being able to hit the ball long.   An amateur is not forced to play from the tips and can achieve a low handicap without doing so.

[chasm]

I didn't mean they shouldn't be allowed, sorry if that was how it came across.  People should play whatever tees they like. My point was that given the distance I hit my drives <250 I choose to not play from the tips at my home course.  I personally prefer to play from the blues where I am not as penalized for not being able to hit the ball long.   An amateur is not forced to play from the tips and can achieve a low handicap without doing so.

Where you choose to play from is immaterial. And the rating/slope system should prevent someone from achieving a low handicap - at least, a low handicap relative to golfers of similar skill levels - simply by playing a shorter course. Obviously, there's no point in a short-hitting amateaur thinking they might be able to break par from the US Open tees at Pebble Beach. But there's no point in them thinking they're a scratch golfer when they're playing a 5000 yard course, either.

[Lihu]

@Lihu

You're cherry picking specific examples or subgroups.  That's just being argumentative. You could come to any conclusion you want if you do that.

Let's stick to the whole population.

Lihu wrote: "You have scratch/single digit golfers on one side and everyone else on the other."

That is exactly my point.  The better golfers are on one side, and there are a lot more attributes the better golfers on average have in common than just driving distance.

Sorry, if I was a bit too strong in my wording. I only though about that after posting. The point I was making is that driving distance and handicap are very well correlated by an almost linear correlation. Which amazes me.

My opinion is entirely based upon my personal experience. I started off as a higher handicap and have been working my way down. During this process as I have been playing the same courses, I noticed that as I dropped from a 28 handicap down to 13, my balls are generally closer to the greens off the tee. Even if they were not, I can hit my longer irons/hybrid to compensate. I used to be limited to hitting 8i or less and they went 10 yards shorter which meant no par possibility for that hole on a mishit tee shot. Since my putting remained relatively constant, 36, I can attribute the improvements to distance gained off the tee and commensurate distance increase in my irons from 130 yards maximum (my old 8i distance) to almost 200 yards with my 3i.

So, I noticed that with my tee shots getting closer to the green and my new found ability to hit a 3 iron almost 200 yards, that my average score was reduced regardless of how I putted.

I realize that this is a microcosm, but I refer to all the data collected by Mark Broadie, Erik and Dave to demonstrate that I am not an isolated incident.

I would be willing to bet that if you go through the same training as me and see distance increase off the tee and the associated increase in iron distance that you would also reduce your handicap pretty much in line with the data that correlate handicap and distance.

I would actually counter that as, other than maybe athleticism, you'd see a pretty eclectic mix in both sub groups. He's not being argumentative, imo, he's just pointing out the falsities in your post.

Thanks. So, I've played rounds with hundreds of golfers (yes, I play too often), and there are so many types of people it's really hard to fit them in one place or another.

[Aflighter]

I didn't mean they shouldn't be allowed, sorry if that was how it came across.  People should play whatever tees they like.

My point was that given the distance I hit my drives <250 I choose to not play from the tips at my home course.  I personally prefer to play from the blues where I am not as penalized for not being able to hit the ball long.   An amateur is not forced to play from the tips and can achieve a low handicap without doing so.

Its no problem man.I know when your reading something you never know exactly what someone means.I can only hit it 210-225 most of the time and anything over 6600 yards or so can be tough on my second shots but in the flighted tournys we play I am forced to play that certain tee unfortunately.I don't really have a problem with holes 6500-6700 most of the time because its usually only 2-5 holes that can be lil bit long on second shots and you just use course management to play it best you can.

[newtogolf]

Where you choose to play from is immaterial. And the rating/slope system should prevent someone from achieving a low handicap - at least, a low handicap relative to golfers of similar skill levels - simply by playing a shorter course.

Obviously, there's no point in a short-hitting amateaur thinking they might be able to break par from the US Open tees at Pebble Beach. But there's no point in them thinking they're a scratch golfer when they're playing a 5000 yard course, either.

I agree, but an elderly amateur who had a low handicap in his younger years isn't going to gain any distance as they age.  They are good golfers but physical limitations hamper their ability to score low on long courses.  They have the option to score higher on longer courses or score lower on shorter courses in the end as you indicated their handicaps will reflect the tees they played from.

[natureboy]

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.

I don't think that's what Broadie was really saying. One might get that impression, because he was addressing an age-old question, which had been framed by others as an either / or debate.

Broadies data (see  chart below) clearly show that both matter and are correlated to lower scoring. He also states that strategy matters too. Short game matters too, because if it's sloppy relative to the rest of your game, you won't be maximizing the potential score. Looking at Broadie's season end write-ups on his book site, if Rory had Tiger's short game of 2000-2001, he probably could have had even better results. The title of the book says it all.

What Broadie's data show is that distance matters a bit more - the line is flatter so you get lower potential score with smaller distance gains vs. improving accuracy. Wildness or a big miss matters a lot in this because you lose both accuracy and distance (not to mention strokes) if you are well offline. Another poster on the forum explained it well. For a particular player's dispersion pattern (degrees offline), placing him closer to the hole (while still having a shot) reduces the average distance the next shot will end up from the hole, which will lead to lower average scores.

It makes intuitive sense too. How can longer and straighter not be better, especially if you are using a good strategy for shot placement? If there is trouble, you can always dial back the distance.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I disagree with basis of your hypothesis in that your assumption on distance doesn't factor age or the fact there are different tees to compensate for distance.

Yes, but you would still be hurt by the lack of distance.

Somebody who hits 300 yard drives and consistently shoots par from the tips of a 7k course is likely going to have a +2-ish handicap.

Somebody who hits it 210 and shoots par from tees that are 5200 yards long is going to have a handicap somewhere in the realm of -5.

[No Mulligans]

Sorry, if I was a bit too strong in my wording. I only though about that after posting. The point I was making is that driving distance and handicap are very well correlated by an almost linear correlation. Which amazes me.

My opinion is entirely based upon my personal experience. I started off as a higher handicap and have been working my way down. During this process as I have been playing the same courses, I noticed that as I dropped from a 28 handicap down to 13, my balls are generally closer to the greens off the tee. Even if they were not, I can hit my longer irons/hybrid to compensate. I used to be limited to hitting 8i or less and they went 10 yards shorter which meant no par possibility for that hole on a mishit tee shot. Since my putting remained relatively constant, 36, I can attribute the improvements to distance gained off the tee and commensurate distance increase in my irons from 130 yards maximum (my old 8i distance) to almost 200 yards with my 3i.

So, I noticed that with my tee shots getting closer to the green and my new found ability to hit a 3 iron almost 200 yards, that my average score was reduced regardless of how I putted.

I realize that this is a microcosm, but I refer to all the data collected by Mark Broadie, Erik and Dave to demonstrate that I am not an isolated incident.

I would be willing to bet that if you go through the same training as me and see distance increase off the tee and the associated increase in iron distance that you would also reduce your handicap pretty much in line with the data that correlate handicap and distance.

Thanks. So, I've played rounds with hundreds of golfers (yes, I play too often), and there are so many types of people it's really hard to fit them in one place or another.

No need to apologize, this is just an interesting and healthy discussion from my perspective.

Yes I would definitely expect a correlation between your HI and your distance..

But the causation?  I would think that is due to all the work you've put in, time you've spent, instruction you've received and technique improvements (and others things I wouldn't know of like strength increase? improved flexibility?).  I would suggest all that is what caused your lower HI.

And, that also led to better distance (and probably better accuracy and a better short game).

I do think the distance correlation to HI is important information, it does help one focus on what to practice.  Swing technique, or the 5sk, which will inevitable lead to better distance and other things.  But distance is not one of the 5SK's.