Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[Hammer 4]

An example...During the tourney in China, there was a sudden death between Tim Clark, and Bubba Watson. Tim who is known for his accurate play, and Bubba who is known for being Looooonnnng. Bubba out drove Tim by at least 40 yds every hole, yet it was Bubba who won.

Now, you could say, that's only 1 example, but look at Rory for the 2014 season, look at the tourney where Dustin, out drove every one to win, and we won't mention when Tiger was in his prime...

[iacas]

Let me attempt to put a cap on things, and summarize a few things from my point of view.

First, I elaborate and provide a way for every golfer to build a GamePlan that fits each person individually (and each shot they face at any given time on any given hole) in Lowest Score Wins . Everyone can use the principles in the book and, after building their own Shot Zones, very clearly, quickly, and accurately choose the best play on the course for themselves, and when they're practicing, improve both distance AND accuracy by working on the appropriate skills with the highest Separation Value.

This thread, however, is about generalities. To put it another way, it is not about any one person's experience(s) or what they think is true.

A lot of golf's "common sense" are, in fact, bogus. Everyone would be well advised to consider that if it's one of golf's old adages, it's probably wrong. A great many of these have been disproven recently. I encourage everyone to open their minds . It's by opening my mind that I've been able to accomplish what I have accomplished in golf and in golf instruction.

---

Golf is, as I stated before, a two-dimensional problem. As golfers we need both distance AND accuracy. Distance and accuracy are always factors. Even if distance is half as important as accuracy (it's not, but go with it for a second), that means 33% of golf is distance. Even THAT is enough to all it "important." Thus, the answer to the question in the thread title is an unequivocal "YES!"

This thread, however, seems to be discussing the relative importance of the two. I'm of the opinion, based on what I feel is a fair amount of knowledge and data, and research conducted by myself and others, that it distance is more important than accuracy. Longer hitters have advantages that you cannot make up for with accuracy. Longer hitters win more tournaments, finish higher on the money list, and are ranked higher in the OWGR than their shorter hitting friends. Speed is an advantage in EVERY sport; golf is no different.

Again, consider this picture:

If I told you that this was an overhead view of part of a par four, and A and B represent two balls after the tee shot, and the bullseye in the middle was the hole, which ball is more accurate given the tee box is directly down from the bullseye? Clearly A is more accurate. Even though it's slightly right of a direct line from the tee box, the added distance is leaving a shorter shot to the hole. Unless the ball is in an unplayable or horrible position, player A will likely average a lower score than player B.

If the tee box was to the right, then we'd still agree that ball A was more accurate… but B is the farther one. It's just so inaccurate that its inaccuracy couldn't be overcome by the distance. Fortunately for longer hitters, this is rare, as we know that, generally speaking, longer hitters are just as if not more accurate as their shorter-hitting brethren when we measure in degrees of deviation.

Why can't we measure fairways hit? Because it's a stupid stat. If Bubba Watson wants to hit as many fairways (or more) as David Toms, he could just hit a driving iron off the tee. He'd probably hit it just as far as David and more accurately than David Toms hits his driver . This is one of many ways were distance HELPS you be more accurate. Bubba has the distance he needs when he needs it, and when he doesn't because the design of the hole is too penal, he only needs a bogey to win, or whatever… he can gear back and hit an even more accurate club than the shorter hitter.

Players who hit the ball farther are not incredibly less accurate. A lot of people have assumed that going for distance automatically means you're going to be crazy wild off the tee. Nobody is saying distance is THAT important that you have to or should sacrifice any semblance of accuracy.

Golfers are, generally speaking, already a heck of a lot more accurate than people credit them for. PGA Tour players are about 3.5°, while guys shooting 100 are about 7°. What helps shorter hitters hit more fairways? The fact that they're short! A ball that goes 220 yards and stops in the right edge of the fairway is recorded as "fairway hit" while a ball that goes 280 but is less angled and creeps into the right rough is marked as "fairway missed." It's a dumb stat.

The green is the fairway. Off the edge is some light rough, the first cut.

Which of those drives was more accurate? The answer depends on whether you consider accuracy by fairways hit or by angles or by how close it's advanced you toward the target.

In that sense, then, golf becomes a multi-dimensional problem. It's still only about distance and accuracy, but also about blending the two appropriately (and of course being able to perform it - there's a limit to how far any one person will hit the ball and how accurately they can do so, too).

Wild hitters are at a disadvantage. But so are short hitters.

Long hitters have an advantage. But so do accurate players.

---

I think it's completely pointless to make up scenarios, hypothetical situations, etc. This is particularly true when people make up such far-fetched examples that when you gain 25 yards you suddenly can't keep your golf ball on the face of the planet. This is particularly true given the chart Matt ( @saevel25 ) displayed: golfers are not very much more accurate with their 3W as they are with their driver. Bubba Watson misses TWO more fairways per round (out of 14), but averages 40 yards farther on ALL 14 of those tee shots. If I told you that I'd give you 40 yards but you had to throw your ball from the fairway to the rough two more times per round, you'd be silly not to take that deal unless your course literally has OB a few yards off nearly every fairway (both sides). So, rather than saying "I'll give you 25 yards but you will hit three more balls OB" it's more likely to be "I'll give you 25 more yards 14 times per round, but you have to hit one or two more balls from the rough."

An earlier hypothetical had some guy shooting 90 with 15° of "accuracy." I don't think that the poster realizes how huge 15° is. The average guy who shoots 100 is over twice as accurate: 7°.

Heck, the biggest number on the chart is 11°!!!!

And here's the thing, too: nobody who finds a 100-shooting golfer who drives the ball 220 and is 10° off is going to tell the guy to work on hitting it farther. He's about as crazy wild a driver as you'll see. He's also a massive exception to the rule: most guys who hit it 220 are about 6.5° accurate.

I've marked that graph up to draw lines to both axes from the middle of each oval. Here's what we find are the averages, as well as the percentage improvement for both gaining 20 yards and gaining 1° of accuracy:

Category	Driving Distance	20 Yards %	Driving Accuracy	1° %
100 Golfer	195	10%	7°	14%
90 Golfer	225	9%	6.5°	15%
80 Golfer	245	8%	6°	17%
PGA Tour	295	7%	3.5°	29%

Now, then, Mark Broadie's other simulation. Having actual data from thousands of rounds of golf from thousands of golfers, Mark simulated a statistically significant number of rounds (maybe 1000, maybe 10,000, maybe a million, I don't know) adding 20 yards to the tee shots (JUST the tee shots) of players who shot 100, 90, 80, and played on the PGA Tour. He then did the same simulation giving the players 1° more accuracy off the tee.

Despite the fact that 1° of accuracy is anywhere from 1.4x to 4.1x larger in terms of percentage improvement, not once did it result in lower scores or more strokes saved than 20 yards of distance .

Category	Driving Distance	Strokes Gained	Driving Accuracy	Strokes Gained
100 Golfer	195 -> 215 (10%)	2.3	7° -> 6° (14%)	1.0
90 Golfer	225 -> 245 (9%)	1.6	6.5°-> 5.5° (15%)	0.9
80 Golfer	245 -> 265 (8%)	1.3	6° -> 5° (17%)	0.9
PGA Tour	295 -> 315 (7%)	0.8	3.5° -> 2.5° (29%)	0.8

For a 10% gain in driving distance (again, JUST with the driver), the guy who shoots 100 will shoot 2.3 strokes better. For a 14% gain in accuracy, he'll shoot only 1.0 better - 1.3 strokes less for 40% more improvement in their driving accuracy. And as players get better, the gap in strokes closes… but the percentage improvement in the accuracy category starts to skyrocket: a PGA Tour player gains 0.8 strokes either way, but you're comparing a 7% improvement in distance to a 29% improvement in accuracy.

And again, that's just with 14 drives per round. Add the increased distance (or accuracy) to the other clubs and the gap widens.

Making up 15° ranges, or a golfer who gains 20 yards but hits three extra balls OB during a round, is simply another way to kid yourselves into believing what you think to be true.

Okay, but you're all unique flowers, unique snowflakes.

We know that.

Broadie, Mark (2014-03-06). Every Shot Counts: Using the Revolutionary Strokes Gained Approach to Improve Your Golf Performance and Strategy (pp. 103-104). Penguin Group US. Kindle Edition.:

The baseline curve in Figure 6.3 (the can be used to gauge whether an individual golfer is distance -challenged or accuracy-challenged compared with the average trend among amateur golfers. A golfer whose driving game is substantially above the baseline should focus on improving accuracy; a golfer who is substantially below the baseline should focus on increasing distance.

There you go. If you're an exception - if you hit the ball 220 yards but are only within about 10° of hitting your target, you need to work on your accuracy. If you're hitting the ball to about 5° and are hitting the ball as far as you can, well, again, work on your accuracy - you have no choice. If you're hitting the ball to within 3.5° and your distance is tapped out - well, you're a real freak of nature, because you're either on the PGA Tour or you've reached the limits - your golf swing is basically as good as it's ever going to get.

But those guys are just that - exceptions. They are not as common as many in this thread want to suggest. The bubbles in the graph above have the most data points near the trend lines and toward the middle of the ovals. Though you can find a 100 golfer who is longer and more accurate than an 80 golfer, such a situation is incredibly rare . Generally speaking, a relatively smaller gain in distance yields a larger advantage than relatively larger increases in accuracy. (And again, that's just with the tee shots - the situation has a ripple effect and the gap only widens if the increased distance or accuracy are granted to other clubs as well.)

You can't refute that by saying "Yeah, but at my course…" or "yeah, but the guys I play with…". These stats were compiled with thousands of rounds, and done so without the bias of memory.

That is not to say that there aren't courses where being accurate matters. But again, longer hitters can play those courses too, because odds are they're just as accurate at any given distance because they need to hit less club . Never mind that they're also likely a bit more accurate, even if (per the fairway graphic above) it isn't reflected in fairways hit stats.

Seriously, look at the LPGA Tour to see what an advantage distance often provides. Michelle Wie or Lexi Thompson can hit 9I from the rough closer to the hole than some shorter hitter can typically hit a 5-hybrid from the left half of the fairway. Do the shorter, more accurate players win sometimes? Yes. But generally speaking, they win less often and win less money than the longer hitters. That's true at every level of the game. It's not a big margin, but it's there, and it favors distance.

---

GIR

There is a section in LSW about GIR. It's the chapter called "Golf's Important Royalty." It talks about how, of golf's traditional stats, GIR has the highest correlation to scoring. Players who hit more greens score better. What's more, the R-value for this stat is very good at every level of the game . No other stat correlates as strong to scoring as GIR.

Let's create a general hole that's somewhat representative of a typical golf hole. It's 400 yards long. The fairway is 40 yards wide. To the right is OB, and to the left is 20 yards of rough (not U.S. Open rough). Beyond that is trees or somesuch.

For the ball to end up in each of these situations, assuming the player is aiming at the middle of the zone he wishes to hit:

	Fairway	Fairway/Rough	Yards Left	Club
Short Hitter (225)	+/- 5.1°	+/- 7.6°	175	4I
Average (250)	+/- 4.6°	+/- 6.8°	150	7I
Long Hitter (275)	+/- 4.2°	+/- 6.2°	125	GW

SOHCAHTOA. I think I used TOA. If you wanted to use SOH, the numbers may vary in the tenths place in a few spots, likely on the 225 guy, but that's about it.

Remember that the +/- ranges are simply that - ranges. A ball hit anywhere in that range is in the condition listed (fairway, fairway/rough).

Notice a couple of things:

• The long hitter can actually be less accurate by over one degree than the short hitter because he can hit a gap wedge from the fairway or rough in order to hit the green, and he'll do that a HECK of a lot more often than the short hitter will hit the green from the fairway from 175, because there's almost no chance the short hitter is hitting the green from the rough.
• The long hitter actually gets to be less accurate because his length (i.e. his skill) helps him make up for it. He's going to average lower scores than the short hitter even if you let the short hitter put the ball in the fairway. Heck, even if you let the short hitter hit the ball from 150 yards out in the fairway with his 6I every time, the long hitter is going to beat him even if he's hitting out of the ROUGH 1/3 of the time (20 yards of rough, 40 yards of fairway).
• The 275 hitter could hit a hybrid 225 if he came to a hole with OB on both sides. So long as he can be 0.9° more accurate with his hybrid as he is with his driver, he's just as accurate as the short hitter . And then he gets to hit a shorter club to the green!

---

Some other things:

• Nobody is saying nor will ever say that accuracy doesn't matter at all. Accuracy matters a lot - it is one of only two variables to golf, those being distance AND accuracy.
• Distance, generally, is slightly more important than accuracy. The gap is not huge at all (nobody is saying distance matters significantly more than accuracy), but remember two things:
  • The gap is wider the higher the average score: distance matters a bit less to a PGA Tour player (they're all pretty long), while distance matters a good bit more to the guys shooting 90 (it gives them shorter clubs which increase their chances of hitting or getting near the GIR).
  • Distance improvements are tyically smaller improvements by percentage than the accuracy improvements (20 yards is a 10% improvement to a guy who hits it 200 yards versus 1° being 14° improvement to a guy who hits it 7° offline). On the PGA Tour, 20% (0.8 strokes) is 7% improvement, while the same 0.8 strokes require 29% improvement in accuracy.
• The Broadie charts were done just by simulating improvement on only 14 shots - tee shots with the driver. If you gain 8% in distance on all of your clubs, you gain another club on your irons too. So… 20 yards off the tee + 1 club is roughly three clubs less into every green. On a hole where you'd hit Driver, 5I you can now hit Driver, 8I. Even if you don't improve your actual accuracy, the accuracy stat that matters most (GIR) will improve. It takes a LOT of accuracy to overcome hitting three clubs less into EVERY green (and a club or two less on par threes, and reaching more par fives in two).
• Unlike the simulations Broadie did, golfers don't improve these things in isolation . As the trend line indicates in the graph with the bubbles, as overall golfer SKILL improves, both distance AND accuracy tend to improve. Distance contributes a little more to that than accuracy, but they both come along together as general golfer SKILL improves.
• Nobody is suggesting you swing out of your shoes to get more distance. 1° of LOST accuracy may not hurt you (if you gain 20 yards, it's break even all the way to PGA Tour level golf), but if you're losing 2° or 3° or more in accuracy those losses start to be un-recoverable unless you are gaining 40+ yards.
• Courses in the UK are not that different than courses in the U.S. I grew up playing a course where the fairways averaged 23 yards in width (and the treelines 24 yards), and Whispering Woods where I play now puts a pretty good emphasis on accuracy too. I've played UK courses, and the Old Course is a pretty extreme example, but the fairways are a hundred yards wide. The U.S. has parkland golf courses. Yes, the gorse and heather and stuff can be penal… but so too are the trees on a parkland course. Anyway, the courses are not significantly different.
• Distance IS a form of accuracy. Not only do you get to hit shorter clubs (or hit a 3W 240 while your friend hits driver 240 - odds are you'll be a bit more accurate), but see the bullseye example I gave earlier: distance gets you CLOSER TO THE HOLE. That is a form of accuracy too.
• Some of you are simply not being realistic. The average golfer is not better off hitting from 175 all day than he is from 145 even if two more of those extra shots from 145 are out of the rough.
• When Dave and I are asked "how good someone can get" one of the first things we assess is their natural speed, or future ability to generate speed. It speaks to their distance potential. Sure, you can be scratch if you swing the driver 95 MPH… but it's far less likely than if you swing it 115.
• Nobody is saying to hit driver everywhere, swing out of your shoes, or always go for distance. Accuracy is important too ; just not quite as important as distance. Consider the baseline in the chart above, and whether you're missing out more on accuracy or distance, and ask yourself too what you're capable of: a 55-year old might not ever improve his distance again, but can still work to gain accuracy. A beginner will improve BOTH rapidly as his contact improves. Better players are generally hitting the ball as far as they can, and thus work to gain accuracy. The mid-level players we work with gain both, but distance gains again account for a bit more of their handicap improvements than their accuracy gains. Mis-hitting shots costs you a lot of distance…

I just thought of this… consider golf course ratings (sorry UK people). The course rating and slope combine to help sort out what a golfer of a given handicap will shoot half the time. The single biggest factor in determining the rating and slope? Course length. Good luck creating a 6000 yard golf course that places such a premium on accuracy it earns a 73.4 rating with a 142 slope.

---

Recap:

• Distance and accuracy are both important.
• Distance is a little bit more important. Without it, you have to work MUCH harder and be significantly more accurate than a longer hitter, who can often hit less club and be just as accurate as you.
• If you're an outlier, congratulations. Work on the outlier piece if you can. If you're old and not going to gain distance, do what you can to hit it more accurately. If you're young, learn to hit it about as far as you can, so long as the vast majority of your tee shots stay "inside the ropes."

---

What do any of you do about all of this?

Look, I share this information because I want people to get better. If you want to ignore it, it doesn't hurt me at all. Not one bit. It may hurt you, but that's your choice.

Happy Thanksgiving.

[jamo]

People who understand statistics will know exactly what I'm talking about.

No, becuase you're pulling stuff like wind straight out of your ass.

[billchao]

@Somerset Simon you do realize who Mark Broadie IS, right? As in the Columbia University professor of risk management and operations finance? Who earned his PhD at Stanford? You seriously questioning his expertise in statistics? When you pull things out like your "advanced" degree, maybe you should think about who you're pitting it up against.

[Hammer 4]

This reminds me of a comment Phil made in another thread...something about bringing a plastic knife to a gun fight...

[mvmac]

A lot of golf's "common sense" are, in fact, bogus. Everyone would be well advised to consider that if it's one of golf's old adages, it's probably wrong. A great many of these have been disproven recently. I encourage everyone to open their minds. It's by opening my mind that I've been able to accomplish what I have accomplished in golf and in golf instruction.

Well said

[ghalfaire]

I'll say it again.  It is difficult for me to see how anyone who plays the game can argue with the general premise that being longer is better.  I think most are thinking about the driver when they comment on this thread.  But there is a lot more to it than just driving the ball longer because if you're 15% longer than your buddy it is very likely with every club.   Even on an executive course it is an advantage if your hitting wedges to 120 yard greens and your buddy is hitting an 8 iron or maybe even a 7.   On a regulation course if you can hit a 3 iron to just short of a fairway bunker and still be in range of a GIR and your buddy has to hit the driver to do the same, isn't that an advantage for you?  Or how about the same bunker only closer to the tee and you can hit a driver over the bunker and your short hitting buddy has to hit a 3 iron short of the bunker because he can't fly it and is now not able to reach the green and needs to rely on the short game to par.

[14ledo81]

Not going to quote (long), but very good post Erik. A lot of helpful information as long as a person is willing to be open minded.

[Somerset Simon]

@Somerset Simon you do realize who Mark Broadie IS, right? As in the Columbia University professor of risk management and operations finance? Who earned his PhD at Stanford? You seriously questioning his expertise in statistics?

When you pull things out like your "advanced" degree, maybe you should think about who you're pitting it up against.

This is not about who has the better degree, it's about understanding what is important if you want to shoot lower scores.

I question the statistics because I didn't see such a clear link between distance and scoring when I was playing elite amateur level.

Someone mentioned that Bubba Watson beat David Toms in a playoff, but how did David Toms even get in the playoff if he has such a big disadvantage being 40 yards shorter?

I once shot the lowest score of the day around Carnoustie (a very long and tough course) in the stroke-play phase of the British Amateur Championship. How is that possible?

I won my county under 21 championship 3 years in a row against 5 other England players who all hit the ball much further than me. How is that possible?

Gary Wolstenholme won the British Amateur Championship twice and many other titles. How is that possible?

With so many counter examples, you have to question the validity of the theory.

As an open minded professor, I'm sure Mark Broadie will welcome the opportunity to explain his methodology.

A few questions I would like to know the answer to:

1) How did he eliminate bias due to wind speed and direction? On average the longer drives would have had wind behind and the shorter drives wind against. This not only affects the accuracy of the drives, but also the accuracy of the following approach.

2) How did he eliminate the bias due to player ability? On average the longer drives would have been hit by players with more ability or who are playing better on the day.

3) How did he model psychological pressure in his simulations? We all know that it's more difficult to hold your nerve when you're attempting a high tariff shot such as a long drive to a small target.

If he ignored any of these issues, then it doesn't matter if he is a world famous professor on not, his study is biased.

If he has a convincing explanation of how he dealt with these issues, then I will have to accept the conclusions.

In the meantime, I still believe accuracy is the key factor, provided you hit it "far enough" (as I said in my very first post).

Simon

[HanNL]

@iacas ' reply should be pinned .

[boogielicious]

[QUOTE name="Somerset Simon" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/396#post_1079911"]   [QUOTE name="billchao" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/396#post_1079845"] [@=/u/53918/Somerset-Simon]@Somerset Simon[/@] you do realize who Mark Broadie IS, right? As in the Columbia University professor of risk management and operations finance? Who earned his PhD at Stanford? You seriously questioning his expertise in statistics? When you pull things out like your "advanced" degree, maybe you should think about who you're pitting it up against.[/QUOTE] This is not about who has the better degree, it's about understanding what is important if you want to shoot lower scores. I question the statistics because I didn't see such a clear link between distance and scoring when I was playing elite amateur level. Someone mentioned that Bubba Watson beat David Toms in a playoff, but how did David Toms even get in the playoff if he has such a big disadvantage being 40 yards shorter? I once shot the lowest score of the day around Carnoustie (a very long and tough course) in the stroke-play phase of the British Amateur Championship. How is that possible? I won my county under 21 championship 3 years in a row against 5 other England players who all hit the ball much further than me. How is that possible? Gary Wolstenholme won the British Amateur Championship twice and many other titles. How is that possible? With so many counter examples, you have to question the validity of the theory. As an open minded professor, I'm sure Mark Broadie will welcome the opportunity to explain his methodology. A few questions I would like to know the answer to: 1) How did he eliminate bias due to wind speed and direction? On average the longer drives would have had wind behind and the shorter drives wind against. This not only affects the accuracy of the drives, but also the accuracy of the following approach. 2) How did he eliminate the bias due to player ability? On average the longer drives would have been hit by players with more ability or who are playing better on the day. 3) How did he model psychological pressure in his simulations? We all know that it's more difficult to hold your nerve when you're attempting a high tariff shot such as a long drive to a small target. If he ignored any of these issues, then it doesn't matter if he is a world famous professor on not, his study is biased. If he has a convincing explanation of how he dealt with these issues, then I will have to accept the conclusions. In the meantime, I still believe accuracy is the key factor, provided you hit it "far enough" (as I said in my very first post). Simon [/QUOTE] You remind me of people I work with who won't accept that an experiment or test or consumer study failed.  They will begin to invent their own statistics or cherry pick data to support their argument.  You are inventing ways to support your point and pretending that you know statistics better than others on this forum.  Many of us on this forum are engineers and scientists, some with advanced degrees, who use stats all the time.  What baffles me is why you seem to want to avoid what is painfully obvious. The only one who is biased is you.  Broadie did extensive data collection using all levels of golf ability that counters what your "gut" tells you.  Your gut is wrong. It doesn't matter if he didn't subdivide the study into 'Thursday mornings where the dew point was 16C with a southwesterly wind at 5 knots and swallows were airborne near the tenth green'.  The data includes all conditions, which is why it is valid.  We play golf in ALL conditions.  Wind direction, temperature, due point all average out by including all conditions.  It is sad that you continue to follow your train of thought.  It is obtuse.

[Somerset Simon]

You remind me of people I work with who won't accept that an experiment or test or consumer study failed.  They will begin to invent their own statistics or cherry pick data to support their argument.  You are inventing ways to support your point and pretending that you know statistics better than others on this forum.  Many of us on this forum are engineers and scientists, some with advanced degrees, who use stats all the time.  What baffles me is why you seem to want to avoid what is painfully obvious.

The only one who is biased is you.  Broadie did extensive data collection using all levels of golf ability that counters what your "gut" tells you.  Your gut is wrong. It doesn't matter if he didn't subdivide the study into 'Thursday mornings where the dew point was 16C with a southwesterly wind at 5 knots and swallows were airborne near the tenth green'.  The data includes all conditions, which is why it is valid.  We play golf in ALL conditions.  Wind direction, temperature, due point all average out by including all conditions.

It is sad that you continue to follow your train of thought.  It is obtuse.

I thought I would join an interesting discussion on distance vs accuracy, but it seems everyone has already made up their minds and are only interested in abusing people who do not agree with their opinions.

Lesson learnt, I will stay away from forum discussions in future.

Simon

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

You remind me of people I work with who won't accept that an experiment or test or consumer study failed.  They will begin to invent their own statistics or cherry pick data to support their argument.  You are inventing ways to support your point and pretending that you know statistics better than others on this forum.  Many of us on this forum are engineers and scientists, some with advanced degrees, who use stats all the time.  What baffles me is why you seem to want to avoid what is painfully obvious.

The only one who is biased is you.  Broadie did extensive data collection using all levels of golf ability that counters what your "gut" tells you.  Your gut is wrong. It doesn't matter if he didn't subdivide the study into 'Thursday mornings where the dew point was 16C with a southwesterly wind at 5 knots and swallows were airborne near the tenth green'.  The data includes all conditions, which is why it is valid.  We play golf in ALL conditions.  Wind direction, temperature, due point all average out by including all conditions.

It is sad that you continue to follow your train of thought.  It is obtuse.

I thought I would join an interesting discussion on distance vs accuracy, but it seems everyone has already made up their minds and are only interested in abusing people who do not agree with their opinions.

Lesson learnt, I will stay away from forum discussions in future.

Simon

You stated that Broadie's work was potentially biased and have discounted it to support your argument.  You don't seem to be interested in discussion, because you keep repeating the same statements in every post.  You also have appeared not to read any of Erik's posts even though they address your questions.  We do want discussion, but you aren't discussing.   You are just doing counter point.  A reasonable reader would see the data and conclude that their position, which was " accuracy is the key factor , provided you hit it "far enough", is vague and not correct.  They would accept the data presented because it has been peer reviewed by the golf community.

It is frustrating for other posters when forum members do this.  You also tried to trump other posters by whipping out your math degree and National Junior Championship. This discounts other's ability to understand statistics and play golf at your level, which seems rather abusive to me .  Opinions are just that, opinions.  Facts are facts. Simple enough Simon.

[billchao]

I thought I would join an interesting discussion on distance vs accuracy, but it seems everyone has already made up their minds and are only interested in abusing people who do not agree with their opinions.

Lesson learnt, I will stay away from forum discussions in future.

Simon

Don't play the victim card. Nobody attacked or abused you in any way. You're only the victim of your own bias and inability to accept information that doesn't conform with your ideas.

Our minds are made up based on objective data, observation, and conclusions from some of the greatest minds in golf. If you can empirically prove that your position is correct, we might be persuaded otherwise. Problem is, you can't, because the empirical conclusion is the opposite of your position and you refuse to accept that.

You're basing your observations off of your own experiences, and while that may prove to be true for you, you are not the majority of golfers and it would be wrong to apply your (and any other single person's) situation across the board as a general statement. Even then, you've failed to address the shortcomings of your observations that some others have pointed out, such as the fact that YOU needed to work on accuracy because YOU peaked in distance because of swing speed. For what it's worth, I actually need to work on accuracy, too, to improve my game, but my natural swing speed gives me a tremendous advantage that I am quite grateful for.

Don't quit on discussions just because it didn't turn out the way you liked. It's good for everybody to have and learn from. It just happens that in this particular case, there is a right and wrong answer, and you happened to be wrong.

[Ernest Jones]

I thought I would join an interesting discussion on distance vs accuracy, but it seems everyone has already made up their minds and are only interested in abusing people who do not agree with their opinions.

Lesson learnt, I will stay away from forum discussions in future.

Simon

Really? That's it? Your best response is to take your ball and go home?

I can't speak for others, but my mind is made up due to the overwhelming and expertly presented evidence that supports Distance. Your scrambling, shifting and generally weak counter-arguments just don't have the meat to move my opinion.

The wind somehow negates the advantage of being closer? WTF? Psychological pressure somehow means you're better off being 40 yards back?

If you can present a logical counter to Erik's thoroughly presented case then maybe you can win some support, but you're gonna have to do significantly better than you have to date. Roll up them sleeves and hit us with some 1st Class Mathy-stuff.

[iacas]

I thought I would join an interesting discussion on distance vs accuracy, but it seems everyone has already made up their minds and are only interested in abusing people who do not agree with their opinions.

Lesson learnt, I will stay away from forum discussions in future.

Simon, man to man, straight up: you're coming off as the one who will not accept anything. You're alleging bias because something doesn't back up your experience . You're alleging bias against a guy with a higher degree than you (you're the one who threw out your Masters degree in math earlier). You're alleging bias against a guy who is consulting for the PGA Tour.

There's been no abuse of you, but rather, your inability to have an open mind and consider the concepts being shown.

I'm glad you've joined the site. I'm glad you've participated in the conversation. But "discussions" involve back-and-forth. They involve actually understanding and responding to the posts the "other side" makes. You've not done that. You've treated this discussion as a lecture, wherein everyone is beneath you, including Mark Broadie's data.

I'm often seen as an obstinate person, but those who stick around know that I'll readily admit I was wrong, and am almost eager to do it should the situation arise. It's the true scientific way: the things which support our mindset are not the interesting things, because they just confirm what we think is true. That's boring to a scientist. What's exciting to a scientist (one with a scientific mind) is to be proven wrong, and shown WHY. As I've said in the past, it's an instant opportunity to upgrade your knowledge . Being wrong or shown a better way is awesome to a scientist.

You just want to declare that you are right, and are going to great lengths to protect and project that feeling. That's not a true "discussion."

The below is written with nothing but politeness intended.

I question the statistics because I didn't see such a clear link between distance and scoring when I was playing elite amateur level.

You realize this sounds like this to people: "I question that the earth is round because everywhere I go, it seems flat to me."

Someone mentioned that Bubba Watson beat David Toms in a playoff, but how did David Toms even get in the playoff if he has such a big disadvantage being 40 yards shorter?

I once shot the lowest score of the day around Carnoustie (a very long and tough course) in the stroke-play phase of the British Amateur Championship. How is that possible?

I won my county under 21 championship 3 years in a row against 5 other England players who all hit the ball much further than me. How is that possible?

Gary Wolstenholme won the British Amateur Championship twice and many other titles. How is that possible?

With so many counter examples, you have to question the validity of the theory.

I think it was Bubba vs. Tim Clark.

Nobody said it wasn't impossible, and nobody has said that accuracy is not incredibly important . It is TOO. Distance is just a little bit more important than accuracy (not to mention, again, that distance is a form of accuracy ).

Seriously, nobody is saying the longest player always wins. You're putting up straw men arguments; nobody has said the things against which you're arguing or claiming that they've said.

1) How did he eliminate bias due to wind speed and direction? On average the longer drives would have had wind behind and the shorter drives wind against. This not only affects the accuracy of the drives, but also the accuracy of the following approach.

That doesn't make sense. He mapped thousands and thousands of rounds. Perhaps millions of shots. These things would level out. There are enough numbers to be beyond the limit necessary to be statistically significant. It's not like the long hitters played every hole downwind and short hitters into the wind.

2) How did he eliminate the bias due to player ability? On average the longer drives would have been hit by players with more ability or who are playing better on the day.

By knowing what the players shot (on that hole, on subsequent shots on that hole, in that round, etc.). Players who shoot 90 possess exactly that ability on that day in that round. If you shoot 80, to him you are an 80-shooter on that day… because you are.

3) How did he model psychological pressure in his simulations? We all know that it's more difficult to hold your nerve when you're attempting a high tariff shot such as a long drive to a small target.

And those results are accounted for by having, say, 200,000 long drives to small targets. I'm not sure why you're even asking these questions, unless the sole purpose is to try to convince yourself that you're right; I dare say you're not convincing anyone else.

If he ignored any of these issues, then it doesn't matter if he is a world famous professor on not, his study is biased.

If he has a convincing explanation of how he dealt with these issues, then I will have to accept the conclusions.

He didn't ignore any of them. Not with the volume of information he had. Since golf courses end up where you start, golfers hit shots into the wind and downwind. And cross-winds in both directions. It cancels itself out. Thousands and thousands of rounds, 65 to 125 shots in each, etc.

I hope you do accept them; it would prove that you are not quite as close-minded as you are presenting yourself to be.

In the meantime, I still believe accuracy is the key factor, provided you hit it "far enough" (as I said in my very first post).

Simon, with all due respect, that's a straw man. Nobody is saying you can't play good golf if you hit the ball "far enough." But what's "far enough" and how much better does your accuracy have to be above and beyond the average to make up for the distance you may be giving up?

You're arguing against a lot of things nobody is saying. I've said accuracy is important. Broadie says it too. He (and I, and others) are just saying distance is a little bit more important. There are going to be exceptions. You may be one of them. But by and large (i.e. in general), distance is a little more important than accuracy.

[Somerset Simon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somerset Simon

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

You remind me of people I work with who won't accept that an experiment or test or consumer study failed.  They will begin to invent their own statistics or cherry pick data to support their argument.  You are inventing ways to support your point and pretending that you know statistics better than others on this forum.  Many of us on this forum are engineers and scientists, some with advanced degrees, who use stats all the time.  What baffles me is why you seem to want to avoid what is painfully obvious.

The only one who is biased is you.  Broadie did extensive data collection using all levels of golf ability that counters what your "gut" tells you.  Your gut is wrong. It doesn't matter if he didn't subdivide the study into 'Thursday mornings where the dew point was 16C with a southwesterly wind at 5 knots and swallows were airborne near the tenth green'.  The data includes all conditions, which is why it is valid.  We play golf in ALL conditions.  Wind direction, temperature, due point all average out by including all conditions.

It is sad that you continue to follow your train of thought.  It is obtuse.

I thought I would join an interesting discussion on distance vs accuracy, but it seems everyone has already made up their minds and are only interested in abusing people who do not agree with their opinions.

Lesson learnt, I will stay away from forum discussions in future.

Simon

You stated that Broadie's work was potentially biased and have discounted it to support your argument.  You don't seem to be interested in discussion, because you keep repeating the same statements in every post.  You also have appeared not to read any of Erik's posts even though they address your questions.  We do want discussion, but you aren't discussing.   You are just doing counter point.  A reasonable reader would see the data and conclude that their position, which was "accuracy is the key factor, provided you hit it "far enough", is vague and not correct.  They would accept the data presented because it has been peer reviewed by the golf community.

It is frustrating for other posters when forum members do this.  You also tried to trump other posters by whipping out your math degree and National Junior Championship. This discounts other's ability to understand statistics and play golf at your level, which seems rather abusive to me.  Opinions are just that, opinions.  Facts are facts. Simple enough Simon.

I don't discount it, it just seems a bit of an over-simplification.

To me, it seems clear that there is a point where extra distance leads to diminishing returns, and possibly even negative returns if you hit it so far that you can't keep it in play.

The reason I mentioned my national junior championship and Gary Wolstenholme's two British Amateur titles was because I wanted to give examples that show that distance is not everything.

I thought I could add a different point of view to the discussion because I have first hand experience of competing as a short hitter.

I might be wrong, maybe distance is way more important than accuracy, but I don't think I deserve the abuse I have received for offering a different point of view and questioning the statistics.

Simon

[Ernest Jones]

I don't discount it, it just seems a bit of an over-simplification.

To me, it seems clear that there is a point where extra distance leads to diminishing returns, and possibly even negative returns if you hit it so far that you can't keep it in play.

The reason I mentioned my national junior championship and Gary Wolstenholme's two British Amateur titles was because I wanted to give examples that show that distance is not everything.

I thought I could add a different point of view to the discussion because I have first hand experience of competing as a short hitter.

I might be wrong, maybe distance is way more important than accuracy, but I don't think I deserve the abuse I have received for offering a different point of view and questioning the statistics.

Simon

There you go again twisting words. Nobody said WAY more important, just more important and nobody is suggesting you hit it so far it's out of play. Not saying you should work on hitting 250 yard tee shots on 165 yard par 3s.

As for the abuse...I don't see any real abuse other than some teasing about the whole 1st Class Master's Degree thing, which you totally deserve. Maybe Phil has been a little harsh, but Phil is like that with everyone so it's not like you've been singled out.