Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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;

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

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.

Erik's point in the first place was that in general, distances is a bit more important than accuracy as a means to lower your score.  The discussion then went off into tangents and anecdotes about situations where this may not apply.  Of course there are certain holes where max distance will not help.  But if you think about most holes you play, the extra 20 - 30 yards you gain with the driver will help you lower your average score on a hole as long as that distance doesn't put you in danger of a hazard or OB or something that will reduce your chance of scoring lower.

That is the whole point of distance being important for amateurs.

[GHIN0011458]

Erik's point in the first place was that in general, distances is a bit more important than accuracy as a means to lower your score.  The discussion then went off into tangents and anecdotes about situations where this may not apply.  Of course there are certain holes where max distance will not help.  But if you think about most holes you play, the extra 20 - 30 yards you gain with the driver will help you lower your average score on a hole as long as that distance doesn't put you in danger of a hazard or OB or something that will reduce your chance of scoring lower.

That is the whole point of distance being important for amateurs.

Distance is important to a degree for an amateur. Accuracy is important to a degree for amateurs. It depends on where you are at in your golf game. Yes it went off into those discussions because there are situations every single round that comes up that may lean towards distance being important and others that lean towards accuracy. You are generalizing and you can't do that to score your best rounds. You can't say most holes are played this way so let's play them all the same. I get that if you have a higher lofted club in your hand the game is easier. But giving yourself the best chance at par or better every hole is also a great way to play golf that doesn't require hitting it as far off the tee as possible. I don't even know if the book says anything about tee shots being of importance because obviously the distance you get from your irons is important too going into a green. But if I can get to a tight green in two and make a par on a hole that is averaging a stroke over par on the field then you bet I am pulling the iron and giving myself a further shot into the green.

[saevel25]

[QUOTE name="GHIN0011458" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/288#post_1079419"]   [SIZE=13px] But everytime we bring up a unique situation it is thrown back at us like that is the exception. [/SIZE] [SIZE=13px]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.[/SIZE] [/QUOTE] Still, in the long term distance matters more. See below,  [QUOTE]   [COLOR=181818]Let's assume the person in your trial gains [COLOR=008000] 2° of accuracy [/COLOR] and loses only [COLOR=FF0000]20 yards[/COLOR] instead of the 25 you've given him. Since a PGA Tour golfer is about +/- 3.5°, an 80 golfer is about +/-5.5° or so, 90 is about 6.5, and 100 is about 7.5°, note that the 2° we're giving them is a significant increase in accuracy from hitting their 3W).[/COLOR] [TR] [TD] Golfer [/TD] [TD] Strokes Saved Accuracy [/TD] [TD] Strokes Lost Distance [/TD] [TD] Strokes Total [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] PGA Tour [/TD] [TD]2 * 0.8 = 1.6[/TD] [TD]-0.8[/TD] [TD][COLOR=008000] +0.8 [/COLOR][/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] 80 Golfer [/TD] [TD]2 * 0.9 = 1.8[/TD] [TD] -1.3 [/TD] [TD] [COLOR=008000]+0.5[/COLOR] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] 90 Golfer [/TD] [TD]2 * 1.0 = 2.0[/TD] [TD]-2.3[/TD] [TD] [COLOR=FF0000]-0.3[/COLOR] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] 100 Golfer [/TD] [TD]2 * 1.1 = 2.2[/TD] [TD]-2.7[/TD] [TD][COLOR=FF0000] -0.5 [/COLOR][/TD] [/TR] [COLOR=181818]Contrary to your position that accuracy is more important to higher handicappers, the chart demonstrates the exact opposite: accuracy is more important (relatively) to the better player . It's never more important than distance when measured this way (1° versus 20 yards), despite the fact that 20 yards is a significantly smaller improvement than a degree (let alone two) of accuracy gained.[/COLOR] [/QUOTE] This means if you take a golfer who shoots in the 90's and add 2 degrees of accuracy and take away 20 yards of distance. That golfer will lose 0.3 strokes everytime that situation comes up, lets say hitting the 3 wood instead of the driver.  That doesn't mean it will happen on each shot, or every round. Sometimes he might do better, sometimes he might do worse. This is were your day by day example comes in. Over the course of a season, that golfer is giving up strokes per round.

[GHIN0011458]

[QUOTE name="saevel25" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/306#post_1079440"]   Still, in the long term distance matters more. See below,  This means if you take a golfer who shoots in the 90's and add 2 degrees of accuracy and take away 20 yards of distance. That golfer will lose 0.3 strokes everytime that situation comes up, lets say hitting the 3 wood instead of the driver. That doesn't mean it will happen on each shot, or every round. Sometimes he might do better, sometimes he might do worse. This is were your day by day example comes in. Over the course of a season, that golfer is giving up strokes per round.  [/QUOTE] What if he improves by 2 degrees in accuracy but keeps the same distance? Why are we taking 20 yards of distance away?

[GHIN0011458]

Still, in the long term distance matters more. See below,

This means if you take a golfer who shoots in the 90's and add 2 degrees of accuracy and take away 20 yards of distance. That golfer will lose 0.3 strokes everytime that situation comes up, lets say hitting the 3 wood instead of the driver.

That doesn't mean it will happen on each shot, or every round. Sometimes he might do better, sometimes he might do worse. This is were your day by day example comes in. Over the course of a season, that golfer is giving up strokes per round.

And for every club longer I play in I am losing .3 strokes is that correct? So if I kill my PW 155 am I gaining .3 strokes?

[mmoan2]

^^^^^

I think it's because the discussion is between distance vs. accuracy. I think everyone would agree that if you could hit it 20 yards longer with identical accuracy you're in the best of both worlds.

[GHIN0011458]

^^^^^

I think it's because the discussion is between distance vs. accuracy. I think everyone would agree that if you could hit it 20 yards longer with identical accuracy you're in the best of both worlds.

Agreed. But let's say that you hit you maximum potential in distance. Then what? Does that mean you have reached your maximum potential in golf? Does that mean that you cannot be better than a player who is longer? Distances vary at every level of golf but you still get players who can compete no matter their distance.

[Ernest Jones]

Agreed. But let's say that you hit you maximum potential in distance. Then what? Does that mean you have reached your maximum potential in golf? Does that mean that you cannot be better than a player who is longer? Distances vary at every level of golf but you still get players who can compete no matter their distance.

I don't think anyone has said anything remotely like that...

[Dave2512]

This thread is getting silly. Devolving into a debate about conditional scenarios where risk would eliminate the need for distance. I can't think of any course so quirky where every hole would set up this way. I don't see why it's so hard to absorb that on straight forward holes distance and being closer to the green is in almost every instance more beneficial.

[newtogolf]

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.

There is a point of diminishing returns, but we're not talking about pro's here.

At my current ability, I will never reach the green in 2 on a par 5 500 yard hole no matter how much I improve my accuracy because I don't have the distance to do so.

[saevel25]

What if he improves by 2 degrees in accuracy but keeps the same distance? Why are we taking 20 yards of distance away?

And for every club longer I play in I am losing .3 strokes is that correct? So if I kill my PW 155 am I gaining .3 strokes?

Please disregard my post on that. Those values are for over 18 holes, not per shot. Sorry for the confusion.

[mvmac]

^^^^^ I think it's because the discussion is between distance vs. accuracy. I think everyone would agree that if you could hit it 20 yards longer with identical accuracy you're in the best of both worlds.

Or even if you're a few degrees less accurate it'll be to the golfer's benefit to hit it farther. The data backs that up. I don't get why that's so hard for some to understand.

[GHIN0011458]

I don't think anyone has said anything remotely like that...

I didn't say they did I was just asking? I am trying to understand this all.

[GHIN0011458]

There is a point of diminishing returns, but we're not talking about pro's here.

At my current ability, I will never reach the green in 2 on a par 5 500 yard hole no matter how much I improve my accuracy because I don't have the distance to do so.

What is that point- I think it can effect amateurs, not just pros.

[GHIN0011458]

This thread is getting silly. Devolving into a debate about conditional scenarios where risk would eliminate the need for distance. I can't think of any course so quirky where every hole would set up this way. I don't see why it's so hard to absorb that on straight forward holes distance and being closer to the green is in almost every instance more beneficial.

Thank You. So on a hole with no trouble and wide as a farm am I going to pull driver? Absolutely. I absorb that on straight forward holes distance and being closer to the green is more beneficial. I can think of numerous courses where there is trouble on almost every hole.

[Dave2512]

There is a point of diminishing returns, but we're not talking about pro's here.

At my current ability, I will never reach the green in 2 on a par 5 500 yard hole no matter how much I improve my accuracy because I don't have the distance to do so.

In your case distance likely affects your ability to hit the green of a par 5 in 3. Just one poor shot is all it takes for me.

[ay33660]

I haven't gone thru the whole thread so I apologize in advance if this point has already been discussed.

Recently I have seen some good improvement in my game and as a consequence of this my index had dropped from 16.5 to 11.7 over the last 6 months.

I try to keep simple stats for each round - Fairways hit, GIR, Putts.

Looking over the past 6 months my fairways hits stat have improved the most.

My next best improve has been in GIR.

My putting and short game overall still sucks big time.

Not only is my driving more accurate my distance has improved a lot too.

The length of my home course is short (it is a very old course built in 1910) so from the regular tees that I play from it measures only 6,481 yards.

Whereas before my driving improvement I used to hit my second shots with a 5 or 6 iron now I am able to use 8 and 9 irons and my GIR has improved as a result.

Also when I do miss the green it is in the first cut of rough just off the green.

I shot a 79 last weekend. It was my best round of the year by far. I did it without any spectacular hole outs but with 13 pars, 4 bogies and 1 triple ( on a par 5).

I only missed 1 fairway (my triple) but had 37 putts.

Based on the length of my second shots my driving distance has gone from 200 carry with 10 yards of roll (wet fairways) to 220 carry with 10 yards of roll.

My 6 or 5 irons carry about 150 to 160. My 9 and 8 irons carry about 120 to 130.

I know this is a very short drive to the rest of the members here but it is a big difference for me.

The long and the short of this dribble is that I think driving accuracy and distance is very important for amateurs like me.

Kinda contra to that saying of driving for show and putting for dough.

[Shorty]

. So on a hole with no trouble and wide as a farm am I going to pull driver? Absolutely. I absorb that on straight forward holes distance and being closer to the green is more beneficial. I can think of numerous courses where there is trouble on almost every hole.

Yep.

I have played courses where over the years I have lost balls on drives and second shots on every single hole.

Not all golf courses are converted fields. Hence my amusement at people here who think that a drive "in the rough" is better than a shorter one on the fairway. As if that's all there is - fairway and rough.  And this is another reason for inflated (deflated?) handicaps. Courses which are not penal.

Bomb and gouge is great if you are talking about hitting out of the rough, not sideways out of bushes and woods, Kevin Na style.

Golf courses carved out of deep forest require strategy, but there is no substitute for distance.