Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[Ernest Jones]

Huh???  Is this a trick question?  Of course it will matter.  On those 10 drives, I will gain two shots.  On the other 4 drives, I may gain another shot because the rough isn't too bad.  That's three shots per round.

What surprises me about all your responses is that for a math major, you have a cavalier disregard for data and would rather go by anecdote.  You have been presented data, but then insist that UK course are completely different so you can disregard the data.  They must have 12 yard wide fairways with 3 foot high fescue and OB on every fairway.  Last time I checked, UK courses have tees, fairways, bunkers, rough, greens and hazards like all courses.  Some links courses have much wider fairways than US parkland courses.

You argument is weak and tiresome.

LMAO, I totally forgot that this was Captain Math, he of the mighty degree. That's too funny.

[Ernest Jones]

There is no limit to how much you can improve if you focus on accuracy.

That is completely false. You could have pinpoint, magical accuracy. Hell, you could place the 'effin ball by hand but if it takes 4 "laser like" shots to reach the green because you hit your driver 180y I would say you're pretty hard up against a limit.

Where did you get this degree???

[Somerset Simon]

LMAO, I totally forgot that this was Captain Math, he of the mighty degree. That's too funny.

OK, clearly we have entirely opposite opinions.

I just know that it wasn't distance that helped me improve from 28 handicap down to +1 and national junior champion.

It was accuracy.

[GHIN0011458]

That's not a realistic stat. You would have to have them hit let's say 100 shots from 150/125/100 ect... on the same hole with the same pin location to get a fair comparison.

Really? That is not a realistic stat? Then why in the world would they keep it. I can't take you serious at this point.

[GHIN0011458]

Your not averaging 8 ft from 60 yards sorry. Besides what do you think your average would be from 15 yards? Or better yet what would it be from 3 yards?

Depends on the hole location- which is a variable that needs to be taken into consideration on every approach shot. http://thesandtrap.com/t/78258/my-swing-ghin0011458 1st video. By the way I was explaining a situation not saying that I do.

[rb72]

Then you are just one data point in that experiment. Which means absolutely nothing.

Here's the thing though, skill level of the golfer fluctuates as well. You can play good or bad one day from another. Not eve PGA Tour players play the same every day. Their skill fluctuates. The courses change as well. Did you pick the exact temperatures, wind conditions, moisture content of the ground. Did you measure all of these to make sure you are keeping everything constant? Were the green speeds the same? All of these things can effect the score you are searching for.

Ok, the study I posted was close, 21% distance loss, you gain 11% accuracy. Heck that is a better deal right? Instead of 30% loss in distance, you get 21%, and you still get your near 10% accuracy loss.

Lets go with your example.

Take a golfer who hits the ball 250 yards, and you miss it 20 yards right. Lets say the fairway is 30 yards wide. So you are are in the rough by 5 yards.

If you want a 10% increase in accuracy, you would be only 18 yards right of the center of the fairway. You would gain only 2 yards of accuracy. Heck if you miss the center by 40 yards, you are still only gaining 4 yards in accuracy.

Now if you say you want to see a 30% reduction in distance. From that 250 yard golfer that would be nearly 60 yards loss of distance.

The problem with your hypothesis is, you are looking at percentages. The issue is, the distance is always a much larger value than the dispersion left or right. When you take a percentage of that, the value for the accuracy is much smaller than the value for distance.

So in your hypothesis. You are only gaining 2-4 yards of accuracy, but you are hitting 60 yards less off the tee. If I take your 30% and 10% numbers.

So lets make a bet, one hole. I'll go out 250 yards, and drop the ball in the rough. You walk back 60 yards and walk towards the fairway 4 yards and drop the ball. Now lets play the hole in. Who ever takes the least amount of strokes in from there wins. Willing to make that bet based on your hypothesis?

From 2013, 70% of PGA Tour players hit the ball closer from 50-75 then they did from 75-100, and the average distance off was 4 feet. Not sure if that is a big deal when you are talking the average putting distance from 50-75 yards is 16 feet and 75-100 yards it is 17 feet. That is really in that no mans land of putting.

Yet going from 10 to 5 degrees is a 50% improvement, not your 10% improvement you state in your hypothesis.

For a HH who probably averages around 200  yards off the tee, 20 yards improvement would be 10% improvement in distance, not 30%.

Again you are highly OVERESTIMATING accuracy.

You have to go back and read the correction i made right after this post. Also my accuracy % is not based on degrees but on the % of tee shots in play.

[turtleback]

I see Luke Donald giving himself a chance with every club in the bag. If I am playing a 300 yard par 4 I am chipping and bad chipping would throw away that chance right? So accuracy there is very important. Now if I know that my money club is a 60 yard shot and my average distance to the hole is 8 feet from that shot, then why not lay it out there 240 with a wedge in my hand that yields an average of 8ft to the hole where the chip could be in the rough in a knarly lie or a wet, public course bunker that is going to be a spray and pray that it rolls close to the hole.

Very impressive that you are better from 60 yards than any PGA touring pro.

[Jakester23]

Really? That is not a realistic stat? Then why in the world would they keep it. I can't take you serious at this point.

That's ok I've never taken you seriously so we're all good.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakester23

That's not a realistic stat. You would have to have them hit let's say 100 shots from 150/125/100 ect... on the same hole with the same pin location to get a fair comparison.

Really? That is not a realistic stat? Then why in the world would they keep it. I can't take you serious at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHIN0011458

Really? That is not a realistic stat? Then why in the world would they keep it. I can't take you serious at this point.

That's ok I've never taken you seriously so we're all good.

Gentlemen, play nice.

[GHIN0011458]

Very impressive that you are better from 60 yards than any PGA touring pro.

A lot of If's in my post if you didn't notice. I never said it WAS mine. I am better from 60 yards than you I would bet.

[Jakester23]

A lot of If's in my post if you didn't notice. I never said it WAS mine. I am better from 60 yards than you I would bet.

Cone on dude that's like saying I bet I could kick your ass. Just don't.

[Jakester23]

Gentlemen, play nice.:-)

Who are you calling a gentleman ;). I'm not posting on this thread anymore I promise.

[GHIN0011458]

That's ok I've never taken you seriously so we're all good.

Cone on dude that's like saying I bet I could kick your ass. Just don't.

Not in golf- Nice swing btw.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

LMAO, I totally forgot that this was Captain Math, he of the mighty degree. That's too funny.

OK, clearly we have entirely opposite opinions.

I just know that it wasn't distance that helped me improve from 28 handicap down to +1 and national junior champion.

It was accuracy.

As a competing junior you already had the distance***, so accuracy was your priority.

***You would have had the same distance as everyone else, which is why accuracy mattered more.

[newtogolf]

The problem is some here refuse to think in the abstract.  If I could hit my driver 300 yards I should be able to hit all my irons longer too.  If we agree;

1. We're more accurate with shorter irons and wedges than longer clubs
2. Greater distance allows us to hit our next shot longer with a lesser club

If I could hit my drive 300 yards on a Par 5 500 yard hole I'd have the ability to reach the green in 2.  At my current distance I will always need 3 shots to reach the green.

[saevel25]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rb72

You have to go back and read the correction i made right after this post. Also my accuracy % is not based on degrees but on the % of tee shots in play.

Quote:

Sorry that should be: distance lost in % to accuracy gained in percent balls in play = 10:30

First I will say that is a stupid way to measure accuracy because you can have OB 50 yards right of the fairway or OB 30 yards right of the fairway. In this situation you can have the same shot produce two different accuracy outcomes. It totally throws out the seriousness of your hypothesis right at the beginning. Heck you can have a golf course with no trouble left or right and you will never see accuracy improvements at all. Accuracy should either be measured in degrees, or yards off of the target line.

Actually using real measurements, Even by my figures, you get 20% reduction in distance for only 2-4 yards of accuracy. I don't see 30% increase in balls in play by getting 2-4 yards more accuracy even when you give up 20% distance, let alone the smaller amount of 10%. You might get maybe 1 ball out ever once in a while that ends up just a yard OB or in a Hazard.

Again you are overestimating accuracy.

[GHIN0011458]

The problem is some here refuse to think in the abstract.  If I could hit my driver 300 yards I should be able to hit all my irons longer too.  If we agree;

We're more accurate with shorter irons and wedges than longer clubs

Great distance allows us to hit our next shot longer with a lesser clubs

If I could hit my drive 300 yards on a Par 5 500 yard hole I'd have the ability to reach the green in 2.  At my current distance I will always need 3 shots to reach the green.

First I will say that is a stupid way to measure accuracy because you can have OB 50 yards right of the fairway or OB 30 yards right of the fairway. In this situation you can have the same shot produce two different accuracy outcomes. It totally throws out the seriousness of your hypothesis right at the beginning. Heck you can have a golf course with no trouble left or right and you will never see accuracy improvements at all. Accuracy should either be measured in degrees, or yards off of the target line.

Actually using real measurements, Even by my figures, you get 20% reduction in distance for only 2-4 yards of accuracy. I don't see 30% increase in balls in play by getting 2-4 yards more accuracy even when you give up 20% distance, let alone the smaller amount of 10%. You might get maybe 1 ball out ever once in a while that ends up just a yard OB or in a Hazard.

Again you are overestimating accuracy.

I think the main problem is we can go in circles all day long. But golf holes are like snowflakes and everyone is different and there is a different situation on every shot which is the beauty of the game of golf. All of this is a generalization based on statistics which does make sense and I am going to read the book. I do understand that a wedge vs a 7 iron is a big advantage for some. But everytime we bring up a unique situation it is thrown back at us like that is the exception. Well every shot you hit in golf is different making every shot an exception from the rest. That is why strategy/course management/mental game IMO is the most important piece to golfing. I know statistics may not back that up but golf isn't a game you can generalize, the spectrum is too big. Everything in golf is a variable from the pin location to the thickness of the rough to the wind and temperature to the green speed to your lie.. everything. If we played in a perfect world where we had the same shot from the same lie every time then I would agree with all of this, but we don't and I am trying to see both sides of the argument.

[rkim291968]

golf isn't a game you can generalize, the spectrum is too big. Everything in golf is a variable from the pin location to the thickness of the rough to the wind and temperature to the green speed to your lie.. everything. If we played in a perfect world where we had the same shot from the same lie every time then I would agree with all of this, but we don't and I am trying to see both sides of the argument.

Exactly.   We get into circles and "hard" discussions when people make absolute statements and try to defend it.