Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[GHIN0011458]

My question is at what distance from the hole does accuracy become more important than distance? 3 feet, 12 feet, 30 yards, 100 yards? I mean a great percentage of the shots you hit are within a certain distance and at the end of the day we have to get the ball in the hole.

[Ernest Jones]

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

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.

Well, I think you need to toss out the extremes to discuss the majority. That's what we're doing right, discussing the majority? So toss out any examples that involve a player that slices every ball off the planet and toss out any examples that involve a guy that can only hit his 5 iron 120 yards. Right? Kinda like the 65/20/15 thread, you have to assume no GLARING WEAKNESSES. If you can't keep a ball in play, then yes, improving accuracy is more important...duh...

So, assuming we are dealing with players that can

• keep the ball somewhat playable
• hit it out of their shadows

IOW, no glaring weaknesses.

Now this player is playing the same par 4 90 times under the following conditions:

• 30 times with an approach shot that is 165 yards out from the middle of the fairway
• 30 times with an approach shot that is 125 yards out from the light rough
• 30 times with an approach shot that is 65 yards out from the rough

Which approach do you think is going to yield the closest to the pin on average? 'Cuz I'll take that 60 yard pitch all day long.

Or how about this:

A 195 yard par 3 with a huge green vs a 125 yard par 3 with a small green both with similar protection? Which hole do you think will have the lowest scoring average for the average player?

[Jakester23]

My question is at what distance from the hole does accuracy become more important than distance? 3 feet, 12 feet, 30 yards, 100 yards? I mean a great percentage of the shots you hit are within a certain distance and at the end of the day we have to get the ball in the hole.

My guess is never since more distance on every club automatically gives you more accuracy. If you hit a 8i 145 and I hit a gap wedge 145 I'd be willing to bet I'm going to be more accurate. Maybe around the greens it doesn't matter but full swing is what this is about.

[Somerset Simon]

Well, I think you need to toss out the extremes to discuss the majority. That's what we're doing right, discussing the majority? So toss out any examples that involve a player that slices every ball off the planet and toss out any examples that involve a guy that can only hit his 5 iron 120 yards. Right? Kinda like the 65/20/15 thread, you have to assume no GLARING WEAKNESSES. If you can't keep a ball in play, then yes, improving accuracy is more important...duh...

So, assuming we are dealing with players that can

keep the ball somewhat playable

hit it out of their shadows

IOW, no glaring weaknesses.

Now this player is playing the same par 4 90 times under the following conditions:

30 times with an approach shot that is 165 yards out from the middle of the fairway

30 times with an approach shot that is 125 yards out from the light rough

30 times with an approach shot that is 65 yards out from the rough

Which approach do you think is going to yield the closest to the pin on average? 'Cuz I'll take that 60 yard pitch all day long.

Or how about this:

A 195 yard par 3 with a huge green vs a 125 yard par 3 with a small green both with similar protection? Which hole do you think will have the lowest scoring average for the average player?

65 yards from the "rough" on most UK courses would be a bogey more often than not because the "rough" is usually an unplayable lie. Therefore, I would bet on 125 from the light rough in your first example.

Your second example doesn't make sense. Controlling a 125-yard shot is way easier than controlling a 195-yard shot with the same club, i.e. average angle of dispersion would be much smaller on the 125-yard hole due to much less spin on the ball.

[Somerset Simon]

My guess is never since more distance on every club automatically gives you more accuracy. If you hit a 8i 145 and I hit a gap wedge 145 I'd be willing to bet I'm going to be more accurate. Maybe around the greens it doesn't matter but full swing is what this is about.

I doubt you would be more accurate hitting a gap wedge 145.

Higher spin makes it more difficult to control direction, not easier.

[GHIN0011458]

My guess is never since more distance on every club automatically gives you more accuracy. If you hit a 8i 145 and I hit a gap wedge 145 I'd be willing to bet I'm going to be more accurate. Maybe around the greens it doesn't matter but full swing is what this is about.

That is a horrible answer. So you are telling me a chip has more to do with distance than accuracy or a 5 footer? I am on both sides of this until I read the book but there has to be a point where accuracy trumps distance and my question is simply at what distance.

[Ernest Jones]

65 yards from the "rough" on most UK courses would be a bogey more often than not because the "rough" is usually an unplayable lie. Therefore, I would bet on 125 from the light rough in your first example.

UK fairways tend to be immense. If you're far enough off-line to be in the rough often enough to skew the averages than I would say that you've discovered a glaring weakness that trumps all else until it's addressed.

Your second example doesn't make sense. Controlling a 125-yard shot is way easier than controlling a 195-yard shot with the same club, i.e. average angle of dispersion would be much smaller on the 125-yard hole due to much less spin on the ball.

I didn't say anything about using the "same club", not sure where you got that but I'll take the rest of your post to mean that you agree, being closer (ie: less distance to the hole) is better.

[Somerset Simon]

Accuracy trumps distance as soon as you can hit it "far enough".

Precisely what "far enough" is depends on the course.

But a rough guide...

If you can reach most of the holes with a drive and a mid-iron, then accuracy trumps distance. (IMHO)

[Ernest Jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHIN0011458

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakester23


My guess is never since more distance on every club automatically gives you more accuracy. If you hit a 8i 145 and I hit a gap wedge 145 I'd be willing to bet I'm going to be more accurate. Maybe around the greens it doesn't matter but full swing is what this is about.

That is a horrible answer. So you are telling me a chip has more to do with distance than accuracy or a 5 footer? I am on both sides of this until I read the book but there has to be a point where accuracy trumps distance and my question is simply at what distance.

I would guess the tipping point is any time you can make a partial, touchy-feely shot like a chip or pitch. If you're making a full swing you want to do it with the shortest club possible no? I'll hit more greens from 140 yards if my 140 yard club is a 9 iron than I will if my 140 yard club is a 7 iron.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somerset Simon

Accuracy trumps distance as soon as you can hit it "far enough".

Precisely what "far enough" is depends on the course.

But a rough guide...

If you can reach most of the holes with a drive and a mid-iron, then accuracy trumps distance. (IMHO)

Not to beat a dead horse, but would you disagree with this:

Quote:

I'll hit more greens from 140 yards if my 140 yard club is a 9 iron than I will if my 140 yard club is a 7 iron.

Put another way, if I can reach most greens with a driver/mid-iron surely I'll score better if I can turn that into driver/short-iron.

Look at it this way, distance breeds accuracy because short clubs tend to be more accurate than longer clubs and extra distance means you get to hit shorter clubs. The inverse is not true, accuracy does not breed distance.

[GHIN0011458]

Also, I would like to hear about taking one more club and swinging at 80 percent. So I wnat to hit two balls 162 yards. I CAN rip a 9 iron 162 or I can hit an easy 8 iron 162. Because I see a lot of people saying that the person with the lesser club has an advantage, I am interested to see their thoughts on this situation too. What is going to give me more accuracy?

[rb72]

[QUOTE name="saevel25" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/234#post_1079275"]   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,  [URL=http://www.golfdigest.com/images/magazine/2007/10/gd200710tech_driver.pdf]http://www.golfdigest.com/images/magazine/2007/10/gd200710tech_driver.pdf[/URL] [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/109665/] [/URL] They tested handicaps ranging from 3 [SIZE=13px]to 20, so good and bad players[/SIZE] 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!  [/QUOTE] What I've done here, in response to someone who asked for a better experiment was to put forth a hypothesis. My hypothesis is based largely on my personal experience (in terms of the percentages indicated). The stimulus is a given distance and accuracy relationship. the observed reaction is the golf score. As in any scientific experiment attempting to prove or disprove a hypothesis, you must hold all other things (skill level of player, golf course played,..etc.) constant. My hypothesis states as follows: If the ratio of distance lost in yards to accuracy gained in % of balls in play is 30:10, it will result in lower scores. Now the 30:10 may seem arbitrary or unrealistic, but it is in fact what I experienced and while i understand a sampling of one does not prove a trend (one person not one round because I experienced this over at least 27 rounds) I'm sure I'm not some freak of nature who is the only one who could possibly experience this. Sorry that should be: distance lost in % to accuracy gained in percent balls in play = 10:30

[Jakester23]

That is a horrible answer. So you are telling me a chip has more to do with distance than accuracy or a 5 footer? I am on both sides of this until I read the book but there has to be a point where accuracy trumps distance and my question is simply at what distance.

What I'm saying is a full swing (not a 60 yard shot) your going to be more accurate with less club. If I can hit a pw from 130 I'm going to be more accurate than you are hitting your 7i. I'm not saying if I hit my pw 130 I should try to hit it 145 cause its easier to hit a pw. It's easier to hit a club with more loft period. It doesn't matter how far Bubba or Zach Johnson hits their individual clubs. They both are more accurate with a pw then with a 7i.

[Ernest Jones]

Also, I would like to hear about taking one more club and swinging at 80 percent. So I wnat to hit two balls 162 yards. I CAN rip a 9 iron 162 or I can hit an easy 8 iron 162. Because I see a lot of people saying that the person with the lesser club has an advantage, I am interested to see their thoughts on this situation too. What is going to give me more accuracy?

Good point, but not the one I'm trying to make. Look at it this way,

• player A can rip a 9 iron 162 or I can hit an easy 8 iron 162.
• player B can rip an PW 162 or I can hit an easy 9 iron 162.

Who has the advantage?

PS: I can't do either of those things, lol. I can rip an 8 iron 150y and that's about it...

[Golfingdad]

Accuracy trumps distance as soon as you can hit it "far enough".

Precisely what "far enough" is depends on the course.

But a rough guide...

If you can reach most of the holes with a drive and a mid-iron, then accuracy trumps distance. (IMHO)

No need for the "H" in that acronym, based on the way you've been posting on this thread.  If you were humble, you'd at least take into consideration what's being explained to you, and I don't really see that.

[GHIN0011458]

Good point, but not the one I'm trying to make.  Look at it this way,

I CAN rip a 9 iron 162 or I can hit an easy 8 iron 162.

I CAN rip an PW 162 or I can hit an easy 9 iron 162.

Who has the advantage?

PS: I can't do either of those things, lol. I can rip an 8 iron 150y and that's about it...

The guy above is saying the higher lofted club is the easier club to hit. @Jakester23 That is a good point as well though and makes sense.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

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!

Okay I'm going to repeat myself here, although no one saw the original post because it was deleted (by someone who can apparently dish it out but can't take it), but what I've done here, in response to someone who asked for a better experiment was to put forth a hypothesis. My hypothesis is based largely on my personal experience (in terms of the percentages indicated). The stimulus is a given distance and accuracy relationship. the observed reaction is the golf score. As in any scientific experiment attempting to prove or disprove a hypothesis, you must hold all other things (skill level of player, golf course played,..etc.) constant. My hypothesis states as follows: If the ratio of distance lost in yards to accuracy gained in % of balls in play is 30:10, it will result in lower scores. Now the 30:10 may seem arbitrary or unrealistic, but it is in fact what I experienced and while i understand a sampling of one does not prove a trend (one person not one round because I experienced this over at least 27 rounds) I'm sure I'm not some freak of nature who is the only one who could possibly experience this.

Your post was deleted because it was rude.  If you keep being rude, you will be restricted from this thread.

[GHIN0011458]

No need for the "H" in that acronym, based on the way you've been posting on this thread.  If you were humble, you'd at least take into consideration what's being explained to you, and I don't really see that.

What I am seeing is that the better players here are typically disagreeing more with the theory than those who are higher handicaps. For us, I would kill to give myself 4 more birdie trys per round and have under 29 putts per round which is more important to me than being able to hit a 5 iron 220 yards.

[GHIN0011458]

I mean really- if I am playing a 400 yard par 4 and I hit driver 400 yards then accuracy comes into play on the chip right?.. so I think there is some type of curve on how important distance is. The longer you are, the less important it becomes, the more accuracy comes into play. Which could be in the book already.