Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[Somerset Simon]

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

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

The title of the thread is: "Is distance really that important for amateurs?"

My position is firmly that accuracy is much more important because:

Extra accuracy always helps on every shot.

whereas

Extra distance might help on some shots, if you can resist the temptation to pull out the driver on every hole.

Based on my experience of 30 years playing with hundreds of golfers of all abilities, I would say only a small percentage would benefit significantly from extra distance, whereas 100% of golfers would benefit significantly from extra accuracy.

Therefore, to answer the original question, I would say distance is NOT really that important for most amateurs.

Simon

[rb72]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it's the assumptions or the "controlled" part of my experiment that you don't like. I was only trying to establish that IF you are gaining a 10% increase in distance at the expense of a 30% decrease in accuracy it will not result in lower scores. You could easily change it to 15% on the distance and 25% on the accuracy. Like I already said in a post prior to you post, there has to be a tipping point somewhere. And IF my personal experience is on the wrong side of that tipping point then there must be others. Right? I'm not a freak, okay!

[iacas]

So it's the assumptions or the "controlled" part of my experiment that you don't like. I was only trying to establish that IF you are gaining a 10% increase in distance at the expense of a 30% decrease in accuracy it will not result in lower scores.

Seriously? Do you honestly, legitimately consider this a valid point? Something you just made up?

Originally Posted by Somerset Simon

My position is firmly that accuracy is much more important because:

Extra accuracy always helps on every shot.

whereas

Extra distance might help on some shots, if you can resist the temptation to pull out the driver on every hole.

You have no real basis for these claims. You've seemingly ignored every post which points out the opposite, and just keep repeating yourself, and making up more examples about how golf is different in the UK versus here in the U.S.

Based on my experience of 30 years playing with hundreds of golfers of all abilities, I would say only a small percentage would benefit significantly from extra distance, whereas 100% of golfers would benefit significantly from extra accuracy.

A small percentage?

I give up.

Enjoy the cave, people.

[billchao]

The title of the thread is: "Is distance really that important for amateurs?" My position is firmly that accuracy is much more important because:                 Extra accuracy always helps on every shot. whereas                 Extra distance might help on some shots, if you can resist the temptation to pull out the driver on every hole. Based on my experience of 30 years playing with hundreds of golfers of all abilities, I would say only a small percentage would benefit significantly from extra distance, whereas 100% of golfers would benefit significantly from extra accuracy.

You seem to have this misconception that extra distance only helps with the driver, and because people don't hit fairways, it won't help them. Extra distance helps with every club in the bag. Would you rather hit a 6i into a green or a 4i? How about a 7i vs a PW? Seriously, all your examples where additional distance would hurt a golfer, they could just as easily hit a shorter club to stay in play and still benefit from the length. Some people can play irons off the tee for narrow holes because they have the distance. Shorter hitters don't have that option. Plus, accuracy doesn't add up to a lot. If a golfer hits 5 fairways a round and gains 20% accuracy, he hits one more fairway. Big whoop. His miss goes from 20 yards offline to 16. If that extra 4 yards really means he won't be OB or in the trees anymore, then he should probably just learn to aim better in the first place, because 4 yards isn't a lot of ground.

[Somerset Simon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somerset Simon

My position is firmly that accuracy is much more important because:

Extra accuracy always helps on every shot.

whereas

Extra distance might help on some shots, if you can resist the temptation to pull out the driver on every hole.

You have no real basis for these claims. You've seemingly ignored every post which points out the opposite, and just keep repeating yourself, and making up more examples about how golf is different in the UK versus here in the U.S.

These aren't "claims", they are self-evident truths.

Are you trying to say that there are some shots where accuracy doesn't help???? or that there are no shots where distance does not help????

Simon

[iacas]

Are you trying to say that there are some shots where accuracy doesn't help???? or that there are no shots where distance does not help????

No.

These aren't "claims", they are self-evident truths.

Enjoy the cave.

[Somerset Simon]

You seem to have this misconception that extra distance only helps with the driver, and because people don't hit fairways, it won't help them.

Extra distance helps with every club in the bag. Would you rather hit a 6i into a green or a 4i? How about a 7i vs a PW? Seriously, all your examples where additional distance would hurt a golfer, they could just as easily hit a shorter club to stay in play and still benefit from the length. Some people can play irons off the tee for narrow holes because they have the distance. Shorter hitters don't have that option.

Plus, accuracy doesn't add up to a lot. If a golfer hits 5 fairways a round and gains 20% accuracy, he hits one more fairway. Big whoop. His miss goes from 20 yards offline to 16. If that extra 4 yards really means he won't be OB or in the trees anymore, then he should probably just learn to aim better in the first place, because 4 yards isn't a lot of ground.

If accuracy doesn't add up to a lot, why do all the pros spend hundreds of hours on the range grooving their swings?

[saevel25]

So it's the assumptions or the "controlled" part of my experiment that you don't like. I was only trying to establish that IF you are gaining a 10% increase in distance at the expense of a 30% decrease in accuracy it will not result in lower scores. You could easily change it to 15% on the distance and 25% on the accuracy. Like I already said in a post prior to you post, there has to be a tipping point somewhere. And IF my personal experience is on the wrong side of that tipping point then there must be others. Right? I'm not a freak, okay!

Here's the thing. A person isn't going to gain substantial degrees of accuracy just by switching to a shorter club. Their swing will still produce the same bad shot.

Heck your study has already been done,

http://www.golfdigest.com/images/magazine/2007/10/gd200710tech_driver.pdf

They tested handicaps ranging from 3 to 20, so good and bad players

In the end,on average a player was only 2 YARDS, I will say again 2 YARDS more accurate with their 3 wood versus their driver.

They are gaining a 21% increase in accuracy, gaining 6 feet. Yet they are losing 11% of distance.

Yet, my dad always told me that his boss would say, "Don't tell me percentages tell me the numbers".

The numbers say you are losing 23 yards in distance to only gain 2 yard in accuracy . You have to be an IDIOT to give up two club lengths to only gain 2 YARDS!

[saevel25]

If accuracy doesn't add up to a lot, why do all the pros spend hundreds of hours on the range grooving their swings?

Because as @iacas has shown above, accuracy matters more for better players. Yet this discussion isn't about the best players.

[rkim291968]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving your distance might improve your score on some courses.

Simon

I agree with much of your post except for the last line.You are assuming a golfer who suddenly added 30 yards to his distance will use the same previous clubs for every shot.  30 yards added distance means a golfer can play with easier club (2 - 3 lengths less, e.g, 6 iron instead of 3 for long approach shot) for every shot before he suddenly added 30 yards to his club distance.

There is no argument against added distance improving golf.   The OP's question is really on how important ("really that important?) is the added distance to amateur golfers. The OP didn't quantify how much is "that" in "that important?"  But I can easily find instances where it isn't THAT (whatever the OP implied) important depending on many factors.  Would all of us like to have added distance (with accuracy even)?  Hell, yeah!  How important is it for everyone?   That mileage will vary according to where one's at in their golf stage.   How important is adding 30 yards to a 78 year old man who just wants to be able to come out and enjoy a round of golf with his son or grandson?     How important is it for my wife who could care less about what her score is at the end of a round?    Not much.   But for most of us golf addicts, 30 yards may worth $1000 to invest in new clubs, $500 on instruction, hours and hours of range practice, enough to sell one's soul to the devil, ....

[Ernest Jones]

If accuracy doesn't add up to a lot, why do all the pros spend hundreds of hours on the range grooving their swings?

Because it's not an either/or scenario, it all adds up. I don't recall anyone saying that accuracy isn't a good thing, or that you should blindly pull driver on every tee box all the time.

The point is that, given a choice between a comparative increase of accuracy and distance, the distance increase will lead to lower scores more often. The proximity to the hole before hitting has the greatest correlation to proximity to the hole after hitting. This has been demonstrated through extensive test on large sample sizes, not on hypothetical scenarios and completely made up stats.

[Crim]

I haven't read much of this thread, this is just my personal opinion from how my first couple years of golf has gone.

Any golfer that routinely hits scores 100 or worse, Accuracy (slicing/shanking/chunking also being factors) are usually the culprit. Once they've grooved in an ok swing and you're in the 90's consistently...you realize how much a factor distance really is. At that point when you've grooved in a OK swing, DISTANCE > ACCURACY.

Distance is killing me right now. I can hit 210 yard drives into the fairway all day long....big whoop. Now I get to hit a wood or hybrid into the green :(

I'll take 7 iron from the rough vs a wood from the fairway all day long thank you very much. But like someone else has said, distance doesn't just effect the driver. Having a faster clubhead speed is going to help your game all around.

[Somerset Simon]

I haven't read much of this thread, this is just my personal opinion from how my first couple years of golf has gone.

Any golfer that routinely hits scores 100 or worse, Accuracy (slicing/shanking/chunking also being factors) are usually the culprit. Once they've grooved in an ok swing and you're in the 90's consistently...you realize how much a factor distance really is. At that point when you've grooved in a OK swing, DISTANCE > ACCURACY.

Distance is killing me right now. I can hit 210 yard drives into the fairway all day long....big whoop. Now I get to hit a wood or hybrid into the green :(

I'll take 7 iron from the rough vs a wood from the fairway all day long thank you very much. But like someone else has said, distance doesn't just effect the driver. Having a faster clubhead speed is going to help your game all around.

Clearly if you're hitting a high percentage of fairways but struggling to reach a lot of holes, then distance > accuracy.

But, in my experience, I think it's normally the other way around for most amateurs. No problem reaching the greens, but too many shots going in the long rough and trees.

I think maybe there is a significant difference between typical courses in the UK compared to typically courses in the US.

Maybe your courses tend to be longer and wider, so you rightly value distance more than accuracy.

[Ernest Jones]

No problem reaching the greens, but too many shots going in the long rough and trees.

What the hell does that even mean?

[rb72]

BTW, let's clear this up. While the topic is titled "Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?" The OP was clearly implying "as compared to keeping it in play" as he went on to describe a scenario wherein his playing partners were out-distancing him by a wide margin but his short, in play shots were garnering him lower scores.

[rkim291968]

It's easier to make a free throw in basketball if one is standing two feet away from the basket.   It's easier to make good on penalty kick if one is shooting from 5 yards away.  It's easier ....

Back to the OP folks.  The question is really on how important is distance for amateur golfers.   How important is it for you now?

[Somerset Simon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somerset Simon

No problem reaching the greens, but too many shots going in the long rough and trees.

What the hell does that even mean?

That means most the holes are only a drive and a mid-iron.

Lack of distance is not preventing the player from getting a good score.

The reason they cannot break 80 is because they cannot keep the ball on the fairway.

That is my experience.

Most golfers struggle to get good scores primarily due to a lack of accuracy.

Distance is lower down the priority list of things they need to work on.

[Dave2512]

My experience is those that can't break 80 can't because their bad shots are very bad. If they hit 14 drives just a couple leave them a chance to hit GIR. Regardless the closer they get it to the hole from the tee the better off they are. I'll take behind a tree from 180 in favor of the topped tee shot that leaves the ball between the whites and reds from 360. Not that I do that anymore .