Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[mvmac]

How about Phil Mickelson at Muirfield in 2013.

I'm pretty sure he didn't even carry a driver.

He understood very well that there is an optimal distance and it would have been counter-productive to attempt to go beyond the optimal.

Some courses like Augusta where there is hardly any rough, the optimal distance is much longer and players like Bubba Watson have an advantage.

Not saying distance isn't important.

Just saying there is such a thing as an optimal distance, and I think it is much shorter than most people believe, as illustrated by Gary Wolstenholme's outstandingly successful amateur career.

Simon

Did you take some time to think of Erik's point that distance is a form of accuracy? Doesn't seem that you did.

Also Phil has won tournaments with two drivers in the bag. I've talked with the Callaway guys that build his clubs, he does everything he can to hit it farther off the tee.

On some holes, the optimal strategy is just to hit the ball as far as possible, but I think that most people would end up OOB or in the trees on most holes if they had a magic club that could hit the ball 400 yards, so there is definitely an optimal distance, and it isn't just a simple case of the further the better :-)

Why does hitting it as far as possible have to result in most players hitting it OB? Generally, players with crappy mechanics hit the ball shorter than players with good mechanics. Good mechanics produce long and accurate shots.

The optimal driving distance off the tee is the furthest you can hit it (i.e. the closest you can get to the hole for your next shot) without putting yourself into danger.

Sounds good to me.

Hitting it as far as possible without putting yourself into danger might be a good way of getting a low score, but it isn't a good definition of optimal.

Well if it results in a lower score, which having a shorter club (even it's from the light/medium rough) tends to do, then it is "optimal".

A long hitter without proper management can get into more danger if their shots go wild.

Again why does hitting it far have to be associated with being "wild" off the tee? Think of the longer players you know, there's a good chance they have good mechanics and hit it far with accuracy.

[Somerset Simon]

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

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

[billchao]

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

I disagree. The rough on most courses I play isn't very penal and I have a much better chance at making GIR by being closer to the hole. Most of my GIR do not come after a fairway hit. My fairways % has little to no correlation to scoring well.

If you want to talk about accuracy, why would you pick a stat like fairway % anyway? GIR or distance from the pin would be a better indicator of one's accuracy than how many fairways you hit. Too many variables involved for fairway % to be a good indicator of accuracy.

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

LOL

C'mon dude, that's not a story. It's not even anecdotal. You just made it up. I could just as easily make up a story too:

Twin A: This extra distance is awesome! I can't keep my driver in play, but now that I can hit my 4H 240 yards, I hit it long and shoot 78.

Twin B: This extra accuracy is great, but I still drive it 200, so I have no chance to beat my brother. I shot 92.

See what I did there?

[Tical1969]

Seriously, only the score count, no mater how you get into the hole... but :

Depends where you play,  the design of the hole or the course and the weather (windy on a narrow hole with trees and water... or large wide open fairway with no OB)...

Depends your average score, and what is your goal.

It seems you play around the 110... It is for sure that any tour player could shoot around 80 without any wood in his bag.

So if you want to reach 100, it is no big deal using a 5F wood or a Hybrid on the tee.

But when you will want to break the 100 as an amateur and get around the 90, it will mean that, except if you are Moe Norman :o)... there is almost no chance that you would make up and down on 50% of the holes.

And around the 85 you have to be in regulation on 1/4 to 1/3 of the holes... so you have to be able to play a short to middle iron as the second stroke.

So at a certain level, distance mater as much as accuracy, no less, no more.

Just remember that 60% of your golf shot, as a good player, will be less than 100 yards.

Enjoy.

[rb72]

Did you take some time to think of Erik's point that distance is a form of accuracy? Doesn't seem that you did.

Also Phil has won tournaments with two drivers in the bag. I've talked with the Callaway guys that build his clubs, he does everything he can to hit it farther off the tee.

Why does hitting it as far as possible have to result in most players hitting it OB? Generally, players with crappy mechanics hit the ball shorter than players with good mechanics. Good mechanics produce long and accurate shots.

Sounds good to me.

Well if it results in a lower score, which having a shorter club (even it's from the light/medium rough) tends to do, then it is "optimal".

Again why does hitting it far have to be associated with being "wild" off the tee? Think of the longer players you know, there's a good chance they have good mechanics and hit it far with accuracy.

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.

[billchao]

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.

Well obviously, you'll score better if you stay out of the woods. Swinging harder really isn't the topic of the thread, though. Plus, it's been pointed out earlier that this is more of a general statement. Individual golfers' needs and skills differ, so it's impossible to apply it that way. We could come up with individual examples that support and contradict this until the cows come home and we'd get nowhere.

[inthehole]

Hopefully, he will "get it" eventually.   I was of his mindset initially & fairly outspoken about it ... until those of MUCH lower hcp than myself here made valid points to support that distance & hitting GIR's are paramount.   I listened & my game has improved this year

[saevel25]

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.

Of course swinging hard with bad mechanics is not a good idea. Still, get the most distance you can that is acceptable to you. Sometimes your own perception isn't to good on this one. Golfers tend to remember moments over actually seeing the whole picture on average. If you cost your self 2 strokes a round on penalties with the driver, but make up 3 strokes because the other times you are hitting more greens being closer to the green, then you actually save a stroke on the round. Still those penalties stick out more because they are big negative moments.

Still, in today's age with the forgiving drivers. I say let it rip when you think you can. If you play a very tight courses, heavy trees or OB. Then yea, swing easier. If you come to a hole that is more wide open, let it rip. Really, I take driver out on every hole I can, as long as trouble doesn't make up majority of my landing area. I just vary how hard I swing for accuracy. The primary reason being I want the higher MOI of the driver for more forgiveness.

[Somerset Simon]

Hopefully, he will "get it" eventually.   I was of his mindset initially & fairly outspoken about it ... until those of MUCH lower hcp than myself here made valid points to support that distance & hitting GIR's are paramount.   I listened & my game has improved this year

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

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

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

My dad is a 15 handicap. He hits the ball almost as far as me but he shoots 87 and I shoot 72.

It's not that he's got a poor short game. His putting and chipping is almost as good as mine.

The reason he shoots 87 is because he only hits 30% of fairways whereas I hit 65-70%.

When he hits the fairway, he makes par more often than not.

But when he misses the fairway, he often makes double or triple bogey.

It's the 4 or 5 double/triple bogeys that ruin his score, not his lack of distance.

Maybe accuracy is not important on your course, but on the vast majority of courses in the UK, if you go more than 10 yards off the fairway, you will either be OOB or in an unplayable lie, e.g. tangled up in heather or buried in foot-long rough.

GIR is king of the stats, but you can't achieve a high GIR if you are hacking out of the rough on 50% of the holes.

Simon

[saevel25]

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

Depends on how much distance versus how much accuracy. At a certain point there is a break even. In the end though the ratio to distance versus accuracy is heavily in distances favor.

Maybe accuracy is not important on your course, but on the vast majority of courses in the UK, if you go more than 10 yards off the fairway, you will either be OOB or in an unplayable lie, e.g. tangled up in heather or buried in foot-long rough.

GIR is king of the stats, but you can't achieve a high GIR if you are hacking out of the rough on 50% of the holes.

Simon

You are giving extreme cases here. If the course is tighter than get the most distance you can that doesn't cause you to end up with penalty strokes. Common sense really. This thread isn't about being stupid. If I have a golf hole that has a 15 yard wide fairway and 5 yards off the fairway is water or OB, I am probably going to not try to bomb it. I will try to get as much distance as possible with in my ability to keep it in play.

Basically all you are doing is giving specific examples that most people don't really encounter routinely. Heck I've watched enough Mark Crossfield videos to see that all UK courses are not like the ones you are describing. Giving some unique examples does not counter the truth that distance matters a lot.

[rb72]

Well obviously, you'll score better if you stay out of the woods. Swinging harder really isn't the topic of the thread, though.

Plus, it's been pointed out earlier that this is more of a general statement. Individual golfers' needs and skills differ, so it's impossible to apply it that way. We could come up with individual examples that support and contradict this until the cows come home and we'd get nowhere.

Right. And being more accurate keeps you out of the woods. Being longer does not. And if swinging harder isn't the topic than the topic is moot. How else would an individual golfer choose between accuracy and length?

Of course swinging hard with bad mechanics is not a good idea. Still, get the most distance you can that is acceptable to you. Sometimes your own perception isn't to good on this one. Golfers tend to remember moments over actually seeing the whole picture on average. If you cost your self 2 strokes a round on penalties with the driver, but make up 3 strokes because the other times you are hitting more greens being closer to the green, then you actually save a stroke on the round. Still those penalties stick out more because they are big negative moments.

Still, in today's age with the forgiving drivers. I say let it rip when you think you can. If you play a very tight courses, heavy trees or OB. Then yea, swing easier. If you come to a hole that is more wide open, let it rip. Really, I take driver out on every hole I can, as long as trouble doesn't make up majority of my landing area. I just vary how hard I swing for accuracy. The primary reason being I want the higher MOI of the driver for more forgiveness.

It's not my perception, it's my scorecard. I have a definitive mechanism by which I get more distance off the tee. When I use it, the resultant inaccuracy leads to higher scores.

[newtogolf]

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

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

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

My dad is a 15 handicap. He hits the ball almost as far as me but he shoots 87 and I shoot 72.

It's not that he's got a poor short game. His putting and chipping is almost as good as mine.

The reason he shoots 87 is because he only hits 30% of fairways whereas I hit 65-70%.

When he hits the fairway, he makes par more often than not.

But when he misses the fairway, he often makes double or triple bogey.

It's the 4 or 5 double/triple bogeys that ruin his score, not his lack of distance.

Maybe accuracy is not important on your course, but on the vast majority of courses in the UK, if you go more than 10 yards off the fairway, you will either be OOB or in an unplayable lie, e.g. tangled up in heather or buried in foot-long rough.

GIR is king of the stats, but you can't achieve a high GIR if you are hacking out of the rough on 50% of the holes.

Simon

The issue you have is similar to the one I did, you're applying the premise to your own experiences and not looking at it from an objective perspective.  The statement "distance > accuracy" doesn't include qualifiers about the type of golfer, the type of course, etc.  It's generic and isn't limited to only the tee shot which you seem to be focused on.  It also doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.

Overall I think we'd agree the best way to score is to be in a position to use the shortest club possible for your approach shot in the least amount of strokes possible.  A long hitter can use a SW fro 130, a short hitter might need a 7i, which club would you prefer to be hitting your approach shot with?

[rb72]

The issue you have is similar to the one I did, you're applying the premise to your own experiences and not looking at it from an objective perspective.  The statement "distance > accuracy" doesn't include qualifiers about the type of golfer, the type of course, etc.  It's generic and isn't limited to only the tee shot which you seem to be focused on.  It also doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.

Overall I think we'd agree the best way to score is to be in a position to use the shortest club possible for your approach shot in the least amount of strokes possible.  A long hitter can use a SW fro 130, a short hitter might need a 7i, which club would you prefer to be hitting your approach shot with?

I think the answer skews from one to the other when talking about high vs low handicappers. If you have good swing mechanics, your going to retain more accuracy with a faster swing than someone with flawed mechanics(most of us). Likewise with the second part of your question. I think if you polled most high handicapper you'll find most would say they are more reliable with the 7 iron full shot than with the SW full shot. Although I will give you that they would likely be much less reliable with a 4 iron than a seven iron so they would turn most long par 4's into par fives but that's better than the triple bogies that result from OB tee shots.

[Morocco Mako]

I think I'm going to start tracking some extra numbers for each club: dispersion left and dispersion right.

DL & DR are the distances in yards I hit the ball off the center line. So, for a hypothetical, random club the numbers might look like this:

L: 220 (length)

DL: 20

DR: 45

By keeping these numbers for both full and partial swings, it should help me determine what type of swing to use and where to target my shot.

[newtogolf]

I think the answer skews from one to the other when talking about high vs low handicappers. If you have good swing mechanics, your going to retain more accuracy with a faster swing than someone with flawed mechanics(most of us). Likewise with the second part of your question. I think if you polled most high handicapper you'll find most would say they are more reliable with the 7 iron full shot than with the SW full shot. Although I will give you that they would likely be much less reliable with a 4 iron than a seven iron so they would turn most long par 4's into par fives but that's better than the triple bogies that result from OB tee shots.

I am a pretty high handicapper and I have a better shot at getting it close to the flag using a wedge than I do a 7i, the problem is I hit a SW 95 yards, not 130.  I also wonder how long someone that was able to consistently hit a SW 130 would be a high handicapper given it takes pretty good swing mechanics to do so.

[Jakester23]

I think the answer skews from one to the other when talking about high vs low handicappers. If you have good swing mechanics, your going to retain more accuracy with a faster swing than someone with flawed mechanics(most of us). Likewise with the second part of your question. I think if you polled most high handicapper you'll find most would say they are more reliable with the 7 iron full shot than with the SW full shot. Although I will give you that they would likely be much less reliable with a 4 iron than a seven iron so they would turn most long par 4's into par fives but that's better than the triple bogies that result from OB tee shots.

No one I've ever seen would rather hit a 7i over a sw loft helps higher handicap player. 99.9% of the time your misses are less penile with the more lofted club. Your pulls and pushes are less off line and your distances are more consistent with more loft.

[rb72]

I am a pretty high handicapper and I have a better shot at getting it close to the flag using a wedge than I do a 7i, the problem is I hit a SW 95 yards, not 130.  I also wonder how long someone that was able to consistently hit a SW 130 would be a high handicapper given it takes pretty good swing mechanics to do so.

Well I guess this just underscores what an individual thing this is. I know I'm not alone in this, but i have ruined many a hole by blading that damn SW to 30 yds over the green and I never do that with a 7 iron. What I also know is that my scores have come down this year and, after nearly twenty years of playing, I have more sub 90 rounds this year than ever and I attribute that to my newly adopted philosophy of cutting down the driver swing to keep the drive in play. It has worked for me.

[rb72]

No one I've ever seen would rather hit a 7i over a sw loft helps higher handicap player. 99.9% of the time your misses are less penile with the more lofted club. Your pulls and pushes are less off line and your distances are more consistent with more loft.

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