Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[MrFlipper]

That ventures too far into a weird realm of hypotheticals and exceptions. People cannot regularly hit 240-yard 4-irons, and there's little sense in pretending they can.

Longer hitters, by and large, are also more accurate. If you just look at fairways hit, though, the 240/4% guy might hit more fairways than the 275/3% guy.

People tend to exaggerate far more often to make their cases than what you see in reality.

This is what you'd see in reality:

1) Guy hits 250-yard tee shots with +/-5° accuracy.

2) Guy hits 230-yard tee shots with his 3W but gains +/- 1° of accuracy only.

In that case, the 20 yards is more valuable than the extra degree of accuracy, per Broadie's book.

This is how people often try to argue this:

1) Guy hits 240-yard tee shots but is freakishly accurate*.

2) Guy would be dumb to take 20 extra yards over hitting it in the rough or trees every time.**

There are two things wrong with that.

* People over-estimate how accurate they are or could be with shorter tee shots, particularly in light of the fact that longer hitters are also more accurate.

** People assume that adding 20 yards (or whatever) suddenly means you're crazy wild off the tee and will never hit a fairway. In reality, if you look at fairway/rough/trees percentages, it'd be more like: 240 yards and 60/35/5 versus 260 yards with 50/43/7 or something.

I don't see how anyone can logically take the "accuracy" side of this argument, unless they hit their 3 wood 300 yards or something, and even then I doubt it, I don't see Rory hitting only 3 woods.

Try an experiment if you don't believe. I think it was Harvey Penick's first book that said you shouldn't hit a driver until you can hit all 14 fairways driving with your 3 wood. Years ago, for a time I'd been spraying my driver, so I thought I would try that. Didn't hit all 14 fairways but maybe 12.

But I was always 30+ yards behind where I would normally be, or should be. So what if I was in the fairway maybe 4 more times than with a driver? It made the course WAY more difficult. Is that not an obvious outcome that I shoulda seem coming?

End of experiment!

[inthehole]

Erik - I think by saying longer players are more accurate, the assumption is made that the player is a GOOD player.    I'm sure if you're referring to tournament players or single digit hcp's, sure those guys are usually out there 260+ and are accurate, no arguement.

However, I get teamed up with so many young athletic macho types that swing out of their shoes and can easily get it out to 260+, but rarely hit a fairway.    I know what I hit (235-250), and I know where they hit (often at least 20 yds past me) ... and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, most are far from accurate.     Again, only based on my limited experience (I don't see too many players that are even as good as me - maybe I need to play better courses ) ... most of those guys that hit it long around here and tend to brag about it are NOT accurate at all.

[iacas]

I guess is that the decision I make on the tee box has many more factors to do with conditions, course, situation than it does with trying to get as close to the green as possible.

My thoughts on all of this are in the book (currently) in my avatar. As I said, we can get bogged down in exaggerations and exceptions, with everyone talking past each other by having different definitions of things like "accurate" and so on. I see little point in that.

Because he asked can a shorter hitter do well as an amateur. My answer would be Yes and No. Depends on the course.

Of course it's yes and no. But as a general rule, distance matters more. And the higher the handicap, the more it matters.

Even at the PGA Tour level, 1° in accuracy (an improvement of over 30%) yields only 0.8 strokes (and that's if they keep the same distances), while a gain of 20 yards (less than 7% of an improvement) keeping the same accuracy (degrees, not fairways hit) yields 0.8 strokes.

In other words, a 0.25° improvement of about the same 7% improvement matters less to even a PGA Tour player.

A person's swing speed shouldn't dictate their accuracy.

I didn't say that it does.

I think there are plenty of short hitters who are very accurate and there are just as many longer hitters who are just as accurate. Swing speed shouldn't dictate accuracy? Just because your body can only swing 90 mph does make you less accurate?

You're not reading what's being written. And again, enough with the weird hypotheticals about "I think that there are plenty." That's not scientific at all. It's just your opinion.

Hitting a golf ball is a skill. There's a relationship between how accurate a golfer hits the ball with how far they hit it BECAUSE it's a skill. As you get better at it, you not only hit the ball farther, but more accurately.

That's all generally speaking. Clearly you can find examples of everything in the graph above: the 100 golfer who is more accurate AND hits the ball farther than the 80 golfer is even in the chart above. But generally speaking: players who hit the ball farther are ALSO more accurate.

I didn't say it was "because" they hit the ball farther or that their distance "dictates" their accuracy.

The 240 yard 4 iron is not carry.. you may only carry it 210 but since it is off the tee it will roll out more than it would if it were to land on a green. That is where I get 240 from.. maybe 230 then.

Beside the point.

I compromised 30-50 yards off the tee and was still able to win by 3 strokes because I stuck to a game plan. It was a short course, I feel comfortable from 60-120 yards and that is where I put myself. Distance had no factor on doing well as an amateur because I was only hitting the ball 210-230 off the tee, where other guys were out there hitting 250-290 and scoring far worse.

And had you lost to someone who bombed the ball and had 70 yards shorter approaches than you all day, the event would not have registered with you. You're giving false confirmation bias to your plan because it paid off that one time. There are plenty MORE examples of someone who hits the ball farther having the advantage. Even if your strategy was the right one, it's an exception, not the generalization.

(As an aside, if you lay back to 150 and get to hit a 9I from there, that's an entirely different proposition than if you put your ball in the same exact spots but didn't hit the ball as far and so you had to hit a 7I from there. Same "accuracy," but again, distance was an advantage. You can lay back and still have short clubs in, while a shorter hitting version of yourself would have to hit longer clubs just to hit his drives where you were, and then STILL have longer clubs in.)

Again, I'm not blindly suggesting you hit the ball as far as you can. I wrote a book, the last third of which basically discusses this exact topic. You should buy it.

Again, I'm discussing the generalities, not the weird hypotheticals and exceptions.

Erik - I think by saying longer players are more accurate, the assumption is made that the player is a GOOD player.    I'm sure if you're referring to single digit hcp's, sure those guys are usually out there 260+ and are accurate, no arguement.

See the chart above. Longer hitters are more accurate. Hitting a golf ball is a skill. As you get "better" at it, you tend to not only hit the ball farther, but more accurately as well. Hitting a golf ball is a skill. As you get "better" at it, you tend to not only hit the ball more accurately, but farther as well. See what I did there? :)

[newtogolf]

It seems like the question is being interpreted in two different ways.

1. In working on ones game overall - distance off the tee would result in more strokes saved than working on accuracy.  Distance and accuracy improve as our ball striking does.
2. In playing a particular round given ones current skill set - In this case you have to make the call based on your current ability and the course setup whether you swing driver or less on any particular hole.

[phan52]

I've never been long and my average length off the tee right now is probably in the 225-230 range (not bad for 62, I guess). There are many bombers at my club who I give shots to when we play and I still beat them regularly. There is no doubt that the very best players at my club have significant length but it is combined with accuracy by keeping the bombs in play. And it certainly helps accuracy in general when you are hitting shorter irons into most greens and can regularly go for par 5's in 2. I think I went for 2 par 5's this past season and failed to make par in either instance. Should have laid up in order to hit a wedge of my choice. That is how I make most of my birdies.

[chasm]

The assumption that shorter = more accurate is part of the problem here. My longest shots with any given club are my most accurate, too - if I mishit it, I lose distance as well as going off-line. Does that mean I'm as accurate with my driver as with my pitching wedge? No. But it does mean that as I improve, my distance and accuracy improve in tandem, I don't trade off one for the other.

[FireDragon76]

However, I get teamed up with so many young athletic macho types that swing out of their shoes and can easily get it out to 260+, but rarely hit a fairway.    I know what I hit (235-250), and I know where they hit (often at least 20 yds past me) ... and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, most are far from accurate.     Again, only based on my limited experience (I don't see too many players that are even as good as me - maybe I need to play better courses ) ... most of those guys that hit it long around here and tend to brag about it are NOT accurate at all.

There seemed to be a lot of golfers with passable swings playing recklessly.  And most of them were not all that young.   Maybe there is ego involved and they refuse to play anything but a driver off a tee, even if its likely the drive is going to land in the woods.  On this particular course, there was almost no rough. Just fairway, deep woods, and water.

[GHIN0011458]

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.102.2014.html

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.2014.html

Longer = Straighter?

David Toms.. most accurate off the tee = 173rd in Driving Distance

Bubba Watson.. longest off the tee = 102nd in accuracy

Rory McIlroy.. 3rd in distance, 108 in accuracy

There are plenty of examples of shorter hitters winning and there are plenty of examples of longer players winning. Like I said, depends on the conditions, course, etc.

@iacas I think you need to define "Longer hitters". If we took two people who both had 90 mph swing speeds and one of them hit the ball 250 and the other one is hitting it 200 then yes the person who is hitting 250 is making better ball contact and is going to hit it straighter and can be considered a "long hitter" for the swing speed they have because they are reaching their maximum potential for distance and are hitting the driver on the screws.

OR do you mean if we take someone who is 110 mph swing speed and hits it 260 vs a 90 mph swing speed that hits it 250 the 110 mph player is better? The 110 mph player has more potential yes, but is not more accurate although they hit it further. So "longer hitter" means they are reaching a maximum potential for distance for their swing speed correct?

Why aren't the long drivers on tour?

Just trying to understand it all.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by GHIN0011458

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.102.2014.html

http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.2014.html

Longer = Straighter?

Apologies if that seems harsh, but he is smiling, and the intent isn't to be mean. I address that below.

Just trying to understand it all.

It seems to me you're just trying to argue your perspective, not trying to understand what I am or others are saying.

There are plenty of examples of shorter hitters winning and there are plenty of examples of longer players winning. Like I said, depends on the conditions, course, etc.

In general, long hitters have the advantage, even if that advantage is taking less club off the tee and hitting a shorter club to a green. And again, that's beside the fact that distance and accuracy are factors in the skill of hitting a golf ball, and more skilled golfers tend to be more of BOTH. Not always, and there are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking.

@iacas I think you need to define "Longer hitters".

I don't feel that I do. It seems pretty self explanatory, and since you're ignoring the terms I am defining and continue to trot out stuff like "fairways hit," it seems to be a waste of time to boot.

Let's look at your example. David Toms hits 10 or 11 fairways per round. Bubba hits two fewer. Bubba also hits it 314.3. Toms 275.

That's 40 yards, and not just two times per round, but 14 times per round, plus every other shot where Bubba hits a shorter club (including every par three, every second shot on par fours, every second and third shot (when Bubba has to hit a third shot, which is rare) to par fives). David Toms would sell his SOUL for 40 yards per round if you told him he had to play two more balls out of the rough.

And… I'm not going to do the math, but I imagine if I did I could demonstrate how Bubba is the same or even MORE accurate than David Toms when you consider ANGULAR accuracy. Missing two more fairways per round could be solely due to the fact that he's blowing it FOUR CLUBS FARTHER than David Toms' marshmallows.

Toms has won a single major and 13 carer PGA Tour events in 24-25 years on the PGA Tour. Bubba has won just over half as many times, but has double the majors… in about nine or ten years on the PGA Tour. Since you cited stats from last year, Bubba won twice, earned $6.3M, and was 4th in the FedExCup. Toms' best finishes were two top-tens and $800k in earnings, finishing 118th in the FedExCup, despite being a better putter, too, than Bubba Watson.

If we took two people who both had 90 mph swing speeds and one of them hit the ball 250 and the other one is hitting it 200 then yes the person who is hitting 250 is making better ball contact and is going to hit it straighter and can be considered a "long hitter" for the swing speed they have because they are reaching their maximum potential for distance and are hitting the driver on the screws.

OR do you mean if we take someone who is 110 mph swing speed and hits it 260 vs a 90 mph swing speed that hits it 250 the 110 mph player is better? The 110 mph player has more potential yes, but is not more accurate although they hit it further. So "longer hitter" means they are reaching a maximum potential for distance for their swing speed correct?

Did you look at the charts and stuff above? Did you read what I've written? Have you bought the book?

Stop trying to make hypotheticals and to talk about exceptions. I see little point in it.

[parallax]

My thoughts on all of this are in the book (currently) in my avatar. As I said, we can get bogged down in exaggerations and exceptions, with everyone talking past each other by having different definitions of things like "accurate" and so on. I see little point in that.

…

…

See the chart above. Longer hitters are more accurate. Hitting a golf ball is a skill. As you get "better" at it, you tend to not only hit the ball farther, but more accurately as well. Hitting a golf ball is a skill. As you get "better" at it, you tend to not only hit the ball more accurately, but farther as well. See what I did there? :)

I know that you will disagree, but much of the disagreement seems to come from the "ecological fallacy" that seems to be applied here. It is one thing to use group statistics for making generalities about groups, it is another to apply those same statistics to individuals. It is just as fallacious as using anecdotal evidence to make general comments about groups.

I like the graph above, because it shows the huge range of accuracy/distance that most amateur golfers fall under. It explains why so many people who play golf witness short accurate players score better than long and wild players, while the group statistic shows the opposite trend.

[iacas]

I know that you will disagree, but much of the disagreement seems to come from the "ecological fallacy" that seems to be applied here. It is one thing to use group statistics for making generalities about groups, it is another to apply those same statistics to individuals. It is just as fallacious as using anecdotal evidence to make general comments about groups.

I don't disagree - I agree completely. But… I am not talking about individuals, hence my reluctance to talk about exceptions or hypotheticals. I'm flat out saying that exceptions exist (and pointed out that in the graph you could find a longer, more accurate 100s golfer compared to a shorter, less accurate 80s golfer), and we can create hypotheticals for which I'd argue the opposite of the generalities.

The topic is "amateur golfers" which is, by definition, a group. The topic is not "me" or "this particular guy" or "a guy with stats X, Y, and Z" or "Joe Preston Bob III."

I like the graph above, because it shows the huge range of accuracy/distance that most amateur golfers fall under. It explains why so many people who play golf witness short accurate players score better than long and wild players, while the group statistic shows the opposite trend.

Precisely.

You edited that in later, but yes, which is why I pointed out the same kind of thing.

[GolfLug]

I have always had this perspective about distance:

I will gladly give up 10-15 yards on my driver distance if it means gaining 20% accuracy but go only from a wedge to a 9 iron. Most are not that much more worse with a 9 vs. a SW.

But if it means going from a 7 iron to a 5 iron? no thanks. I just lose a WHOLE bunch of accuracy on the approach. Personally I am not too bad with a 7 but would be happy to hit a house with a 5.

EDIT: My bad. @ iacas already said this in one of the posts above. Was too lazy to ready it entirely.

[9424tm]

I read Moneygolf and other "golfmetrics" type stuff that seems to be pushing distance over accuracy but when I played golf last time, my playing partners had good distance, seemed to have a decent swing but kept hitting out into the woods.  And the Japanese businessmen behind us did the same thing.   I didn't drive the ball very far at all, taking 3-4 shots to get to an approach to the green but I only lost two balls during 9 holes.   If the scoring were "for real", all the lost balls would be serious penalties and my score might have been a lot better in comparison.   I took my driver out for most of the tee shots but some of my worst shots were with my driver (and the only shots where I lost the ball) - now I'm beginning to wonder if I shouldn't just be using a 5 wood or even my 3 or 4 hybrid off the tee, leave the driver at home, and work on my short game and putting.   It just seems to me the short game is the area I could make big improvements to my score with a lot less effort, despite all I have read about the importance of distance.

My advice is to read Lowest Score Wins. I don't want to come off as a fanboy for the book, but once you read it you will pretty much end the discussion. It's impossible to reasonably argue with statistics and facts and that is what is laid out in the book. I think a lot of the arguments on this thread for accuracy are coming from people that haven't read the book. I started using the philosophies in the book before I read it (from info I gathered on this site) and watched my HC drop like a rock. The book will blow you away and solidify the argument for distance over accuracy. It will also answer the any questions you have on trouble scenarios. Do yourself a favor and get the book.

[Morocco Mako]

...you want to be a close to the hole off the tee as possible while not putting yourself into a penalty.

As clear of a rule of thumb as you will find.

Distance counts, but avoiding penalties trumps distance (particularly the penalty for hitting it out of bounds).

[parallax]

I don't disagree - I agree completely. But… I am not talking about individuals, hence my reluctance to talk about exceptions or hypotheticals. I'm flat out saying that exceptions exist (and pointed out that in the graph you could find a longer, more accurate 100s golfer compared to a shorter, less accurate 80s golfer), and we can create hypotheticals for which I'd argue the opposite of the generalities.

The topic is "amateur golfers" which is, by definition, a group. The topic is not "me" or "this particular guy" or "a guy with stats X, Y, and Z" or "Joe Preston Bob III."

Precisely.

You edited that in later, but yes, which is why I pointed out the same kind of thing.

Could you explain how group statistics can be helpful for individuals trying to improve at golf? (if you want you can start another thread, or point me to one that already exists)

I understand how individual statistics can be helpful for individuals (to track trends, improvements, and weaknesses for ones own game), but I have a hard time reconciling the idea that generalized statistics (especially averages which are computed from sample sets that have a wide range, like the graph mentioned above) can be helpful for individual improvement.

I see this type of analysis (when searching for information about golf) a lot (especially on this site), and it always throws up a red flag.

[iacas]

Could you explain how group statistics can be helpful for individuals trying to improve at golf? (if you want you can start another thread, or point me to one that already exists)

I understand how individual statistics can be helpful for individuals (to track trends, improvements, and weaknesses for ones own game), but I have a hard time reconciling the idea that generalized statistics (especially averages which are computed from sample sets that have a wide range, like the graph mentioned above) can be helpful for individual improvement.

I see this type of analysis (when searching for information about golf) a lot (especially on this site), and it always throws up a red flag.

It shouldn't throw up a red flag. If it throws up a red flag to you, that means that you either don't understand that it's a generalization, or you believe that the person saying it doesn't recognize that it's a generalization.

---

Golfers will generally shoot lower scores by hitting the ball farther with the same accuracy.

Golfers will generally shoot lower scores by hitting the ball more accurately with the same distance.

Both of those are pretty accurate statements for just about everyone* , are they not?

Which one matters (accuracy or distance) more in that instant depends on a whole ton of stuff:

• The player
• The course
• The actual gains to be expected for distance or accuracy

"The player" is a fairly nuanced thing too, because it includes their ability level, how long each would take, what their work ethic is like, the quality of the instruction they have at their disposal, their equipment, how well fit they are, what their potential is and will be in x months, the relative strengths of the other parts of their game.

Seriously, if someone completely sucks out of the rough, they probably don't want to chase more distance for the short term. Long term maybe they want to fix their ability to hit from the rough and then go after more distance… but that's the point: there are too many variables when discussing the individual.

When I'm working with an individual, I'm happy to customize the plan for them, as I have some more information. I see more of the variables. That information is not available when discussing "amateur golfers" (again, a group) by and large on a website where anyone can visit.

As for explaining, I'll decline, as it's off topic for this thread (which I'm taking as talking about the group known as "amateur golfers" and thus am giving generalizations), and I have little interest in starting a new thread on the topic. You're welcome to, if you'd like.

I say "just about everyone" only because someone might say "what if you have a golfer who routinely blades all of his 95-yard shot OB and his increased distance gives him four more of those shots each round, which more than offset the gains from his added distance on the other holes?"

I think that would be a stupid thing to say, but in my experience, people think it's a valid retort and that they "win" or "prove me wrong" by saying it, so… I say things like "just about everyone."

[chasm]

Could you explain how group statistics can be helpful for individuals trying to improve at golf? (if you want you can start another thread, or point me to one that already exists) I understand how individual statistics can be helpful for individuals (to track trends, improvements, and weaknesses for ones own game), but I have a hard time reconciling the idea that generalized statistics (especially averages which are computed from sample sets that have a wide range, like the graph mentioned above) can be helpful for individual improvement. I see this type of analysis (when searching for information about golf) a lot (especially on this site), and it always throws up a red flag.

I see your point. However, I do think there is value is looking at the stats for the group, because it gives one a perspective on what has worked for most people and that may be counter-intuitive. In the present context, it may seem obvious that if one suffers from inaccuracy then it makes sense to dial back on distance, on the assumption that shorter will mean greater accuracy. But in practice, most people seem to do better by focussing on distance. As has been pointed out, better ball-striking will mean both greater distance and greater accuracy. Does the fact that this works for most people mean it will work for you? Of course not. But it's useful information nonetheless, simply because it is more likely that you are unexceptional than that you are exceptional.

[Pushy]

As a general question -- is distance that important -- the answer has to be yes.  Such a huge difference trying to hit a green with an 8-iron vs a 5-iron or hybrid.  Over the course of a round, there might be a few instances where you would prefer a longer shot (say, getting a nice flat lie vs. hitting off a steep hill or something) but that will be very rare.