Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Not many but I have one that applies to me.  I am not good at shots for 40 - 70 yards range.   I'd rather be at 85 yards to the green than trying to land it close from 40 to 70 yards.

My guess is perception and expectation play a part in this. When I am 40 out I expect to get it closer than I usually do. But usually a miss from 40 isn't as a severe as one from 85. I think you said you play to a 19. No offense but I remember being there and even now most of my shots are some kind of playable miss.

You may be right about perception vs real result.  I haven't really recorded any of the data.  I "feel"  85 for me is a full wedge shot I can repeat easily.   40 - 70 yards are partial shot that I don't feel I have a consistent swing for each of 40, 60, 70 yards.   Next time, I will see how much I actually miss them by.   What I know for sure is that I feel more confident with 85 yard approach shot than the others.

[Aflighter]

OK,i think we all agree to disagree.Im still going to do my test someday but I looked up scores I posted in my handicap site over the years and wanted to see how different my handicap was based on the different tees I played.This is over a period of 3 years or so on two courses ive played the most.I was a lil bit shocked when I figured up the numbers because even though I say accuracy is far more important than distance I never thought the numbers would show this.I used the handicap formula and not avg score.The avg score may say different but I went with how handicap is figured.

Golf course A:6028 YARDS SLOPE 125 RATING 69.0 Handicap came to 9.7

6450 YARDS SLOPE 130 RATING 70.9 Handicap came to 7.7

Golf course B:5629 YARDS SLOPE 119 RATING 66.9 Handicap came to 9.2

6193 YARDS SLOPE 129 RATING 70.2 Handicap came to 8.6

6609 YARDS SLOPE 130 RATING 70.8 Handicap came to 8.0

To say this shocked me is a understatement because I honestly felt the shorter tees would yield me atleast stroke better but it was the opposite.Im sure some will say BS but I don't lie and these numbers are what I shot over these years.

18 times I played course A from shorter tees and 30 times from the longer tees.

Course B I only had 7times from the shorter tee.21 from next back tees and 5 times from longest tees.I imagine if I had more scores from the short tees it may make a difference but from the data from course A maybe not.

After figuring up this data I still firmly believe distance is not as important as accuracy when it comes to certain distance courses.Now if you talk about playing tips like 6800-7000 yards then I believe distance can be more important because you havbe top get it out there off the tee.

[DrvFrShow]

Why do you feel that those embarrassing moments are less likely to happen so much further back?

Less pressure. Chances are you haven't screwed up the hole yet and aren't scrambling. Plus they're more excusable further back.

[ay33660]

OK,i think we all agree to disagree.Im still going to do my test someday but I looked up scores I posted in my handicap site over the years and wanted to see how different my handicap was based on the different tees I played.This is over a period of 3 years or so on two courses ive played the most.I was a lil bit shocked when I figured up the numbers because even though I say accuracy is far more important than distance I never thought the numbers would show this.I used the handicap formula and not avg score.The avg score may say different but I went with how handicap is figured.

Golf course A:6028 YARDS SLOPE 125 RATING 69.0 Handicap came to 9.7

6450 YARDS SLOPE 130 RATING 70.9 Handicap came to 7.7

Golf course B:5629 YARDS SLOPE 119 RATING 66.9 Handicap came to 9.2

6193 YARDS SLOPE 129 RATING 70.2 Handicap came to 8.6

6609 YARDS SLOPE 130 RATING 70.8 Handicap came to 8.0

To say this shocked me is a understatement because I honestly felt the shorter tees would yield me atleast stroke better but it was the opposite.Im sure some will say BS but I don't lie and these numbers are what I shot over these years.

18 times I played course A from shorter tees and 30 times from the longer tees.

Course B I only had 7times from the shorter tee.21 from next back tees and 5 times from longest tees.I imagine if I had more scores from the short tees it may make a difference but from the data from course A maybe not.

After figuring up this data I still firmly believe distance is not as important as accuracy when it comes to certain distance courses.Now if you talk about playing tips like 6800-7000 yards then I believe distance can be more important because you havbe top get it out there off the tee.

I too have seen similar stats for me.

But I sort of know why it is for me.

My 100 yards and in shots are terrible. I stand a 33% chance of getting it on the green. 33% of the time I will hit it fat. Then the next time I will skull it 33% of the time. And to top it off I will hit a hosel rocket every one in a while.

My most consistent irons are my 8 and 9 irons at 120 to 130 years out. I figure I will find the green or at least just off the green but putting more than 66% of the time.

When I play off the front tees at 6,100 yards I end up with a 100 to 90 yard 2nd shot a lot of the times.

When I play off the back tees at 6,800 yards I end up with a second shot that ends up 40 to 50 yards short from the green. Again I end up on the green only 33% of the time from that yardage with my third shot. And for those times that I am not on the green there is a high likelyhood that I am in a really bad place like 40 yards past the green.

So maybe it is not absolute distance on the drives but rather the right distance for my second shots.

[Aflighter]

I too have seen similar stats for me.

But I sort of know why it is for me.

My 100 yards and in shots are terrible. I stand a 33% chance of getting it on the green. 33% of the time I will hit it fat. Then the next time I will skull it 33% of the time. And to top it off I will hit a hosel rocket every one in a while.

My most consistent irons are my 8 and 9 irons at 120 to 130 years out. I figure I will find the green or at least just off the green but putting more than 66% of the time.

When I play off the front tees at 6,100 yards I end up with a 100 to 90 yard 2nd shot a lot of the times.

When I play off the back tees at 6,800 yards I end up with a second shot that ends up 40 to 50 yards short from the green. Again I end up on the green only 33% of the time from that yardage with my third shot. And for those times that I am not on the green there is a high likelyhood that I am in a really bad place like 40 yards past the green.

So maybe it is not absolute distance on the drives but rather the right distance for my second shots.

Wow, you sound like me.Id rather have a 120-130 yard shot than 100 or less but it might be that I need to practice 100 yuards and shorter shots more.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Aflighter" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/342#post_1079574"]   OK,i think we all agree to disagree.Im still going to do my test someday but I looked up scores I posted in my handicap site over the years and wanted to see how different my handicap was based on the different tees I played.This is over a period of 3 years or so on two courses ive played the most.I was a lil bit shocked when I figured up the numbers because even though I say accuracy is far more important than distance I never thought the numbers would show this.I used the handicap formula and not avg score.The avg score may say different but I went with how handicap is figured. Golf course A:6028 YARDS SLOPE 125 RATING 69.0 Handicap came to 9.7                        6450 YARDS SLOPE 130 RATING 70.9 Handicap came to 7.7 Golf course B:5629 YARDS SLOPE 119 RATING 66.9 Handicap came to 9.2                        6193 YARDS SLOPE 129 RATING 70.2 Handicap came to 8.6                        6609 YARDS SLOPE 130 RATING 70.8 Handicap came to 8.0 To say this shocked me is a understatement because I honestly felt the shorter tees would yield me atleast stroke better but it was the opposite.Im sure some will say BS but I don't lie and these numbers are what I shot over these years. 18 times I played course A from shorter tees and 30 times from the longer tees. Course B I only had 7times from the shorter tee.21 from next back tees and 5 times from longest tees.I imagine if I had more scores from the short tees it may make a difference but from the data from course A maybe not. After figuring up this data I still firmly believe distance is not as important as accuracy when it comes to certain distance courses.Now if you talk about playing tips like 6800-7000 yards then I believe distance can be more important because you havbe top get it out there off the tee. [/QUOTE] I too have seen similar stats for me. But I sort of know why it is for me. My 100 yards and in shots are terrible. I stand a 33% chance of getting it on the green. 33% of the time I will hit it fat. Then the next time I will skull it 33% of the time. And to top it off I will hit a hosel rocket every one in a while. My most consistent irons are my 8 and 9 irons at 120 to 130 years out. I figure I will find the green or at least just off the green but putting more than 66% of the time.  When I play off the front tees at 6,100 yards I end up with a 100 to 90 yard 2nd shot a lot of the times. When I play off the back tees at 6,800 yards I end up with a second shot that ends up 40 to 50 yards short from the green. Again I end up on the green only 33% of the time from that yardage with my third shot. And for those times that I am not on the green there is a high likelyhood that I am in a really bad place like 40 yards past the green. So maybe it is not absolute distance on the drives but rather the right distance for my second shots.

If you are terrible 100 and in how do you shoot low 80s? I'm sure you're exaggerating just a little bit? If I'm 40-100 yards away, I'm asking myself how close I can get to the pin?

[mvmac]

I've read "Every Shot Counts"... I get it. Truth is...none of us are pros.

If you can't hit a consistent 175 shot, then you probably can't drive it over 250...so what is the point of arguing? 140 approaches on long par 4's isn't in your wheelhouse. I know for a fact that top state amatuers would prefer the 175 fairway shot over a 140 unknown lie shot. If you want to believe otherwise, that's fine. You'll never break par though...I can promise you that.

Just because a ball isn't in the fairway doesn't mean the lie is going to be horrible.

You can't say something is a fact when the lie is unknown, that's just silly. Here's something that's true, the strongest correlation to the distance your ball finishes from the hole is how far away it was before you hit it.

[ay33660]

If you are terrible 100 and in how do you shoot low 80s? I'm sure you're exaggerating just a little bit? If I'm 40-100 yards away, I'm asking myself how close I can get to the pin?

When I shot in the low 80's it is generally because I take advantage of my 120 - 130 yard 2nd shots and a good majority of them hit the green or are just off but I can get a putter on them.

In the last round that I shot a 79 my only triple was on a par 5 where I hit a drive off line, chipped out to 250 yards, hit a third shot to 60 yards, chunked my forth to 40 yards, thinned my 5th past the green and three putted from there.

Two of my bogies were due to stubbing my chips and I use a putting stroke with a 9 iron for my chips. How the hell does someone stub a 9 iron with a putting stroke.

My short game is absolutely terrible. When I was playing in the club championship my playing partners later remarked that they have never seen someone who putted from so far off the green.

When I am 40 to 100 yards away I pray that I can get it close to the green in one shot. I don't even look at the pin.

Instead of putting yips I have chipping yips.

But when I am practicing I am just fine. During a real round I have the yips.

It is absolutely driving me nuts.

I know I can get down to a single if I can just solve this mental problem.

My driver and mid iron swing is that of a single digit. My short game is that of a 30 plus capper.

[Dedicated2Journ]

Just because a ball isn't in the fairway doesn't mean the lie is going to be horrible.

You can't say something is a fact when the lie is unknown, that's just silly. Here's something that's true, the strongest correlation to the distance your ball finishes from the hole is how far away it was before you hit it.

Ok, I'll re-phrase. If you hit in the fairway the worst lie you'll get is an un-repaired divot. Those are relatively easy to hit out of with proper technique. However, you never know what kind of lie you'll get off the fairway. You're leaving it to chance, which will ultimately lead to poor scores. In order to get better at this game, IT MUST BE SIMPLIFIED. You can leave nothing to chance.

This is why amateurs continue to have high handicaps. They are searching for distance, not realizing that better technique leads to both distance and accuracy. Higher swing speed isn't some kind of mystical/magical thing that the newest driver will give you. It is something that takes a lot of focus, hard work and determination. It took me an entire year to get my SS from 112 mph to 120mph. Hours of drills, gym workouts, etc. In the process, I also became more accurate because my technique improved.

There is a reason why Jack Nicklaus was a long and straight driver of the golf ball...it's hard to argue with that. There is also a reason why Phil Mickelson has come short so many times in Majors.

I get we're talking about amateurs, but if you want to score better I recommend emulating the pros.

[billchao]

This is why amateurs continue to have high handicaps. They are searching for distance, not realizing that better technique leads to both distance and accuracy.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Most people stay high handicaps because they don't actually work to improve, or they don't practice correctly for improvement. They want some magic tip or new driver to turn them from weak slicer to long and straight and thats just not golf works. Nobody would tell a 20 to train to improve their swing speed so their scores will drop. If that's what you got from the distance vs accuracy discussion, I think you missed the point. Obviously, a high handicap player will benefit from improved technique, which improves both distance and accuracy. [quote name="Dedicated2Journ" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/330#post_1079649"]I get we're talking about amateurs, but if you want to score better I recommend emulating the pros. [/quote]The problem with that is, the pros are playing a different game. The shortest hitters on tour outdrive the average amateur by more than 40 yards. Their courses are set up differently, too. A guy who drives the ball 200 yards, even if he hit 100% fairways, will still struggle to break par on all but the shortest courses. It would put a lot of pressure on their game to be perfect. [Rule] I think a lot of people are missing the picture on this. Instead of trying to design some weird experiment, just do this: take every club longer than your 5 iron out of your bag. Play some rounds like that and tell me if you still think accuracy is more important than distance.

[Somerset Simon]

I have a few degrees myself.  And my wife has her masters in math too. Pretty irrelevant, all of it…

You know what the single biggest predictor for how far away a ball is likely to finish from the hole? How far away from the hole it was before it was hit. Shots from farther away average farther away from the hole. Your average distance to the hole from 130 is going to be closer than hitting from 150, and that will be closer than hitting from 170.

Distance is important. Accuracy is too, but… you're not really saying anything with this "optimal distance" stuff. You can't really know it. Seriously, what are you going to do: play a hole 300 times, playing first with a hybrid, then a 3W, then a driver?

I've written a book that covers all of this, and includes something we called the "distance gradient," and emphasizes how you can build your own "Decision Maps" to shoot YOUR lowest score. If you're a scientifically minded guy… you should check both it AND Mark Broadie's book (Every Shot Counts - more stats, less gameplanning strategies, drills, etc.) out. Here's one of the stats from his book which you can find earlier in the thread. I pointed out back then that 20 yards is something like a 7.5% improvement while 1° is often closer to a 30% improvement. At every level of the game, the 20 yards (keeping the same accuracy) is at least as important or more important than an extra degree of accuracy, despite (again) the extra degree being 2-4x as large an improvement.

Check out the book at http://lowestscorewins.com/. As a 5 handicap, I'm fairly confident you'll find a bunch of helpful stuff in there.

Based on your own figures, if a 100 golfer gains 20 yards, he/she can reduce their score to 97 or 98.

If that is the limit of your ambition, then fine, focus on gaining the extra 20 yards.

If, on the other hand, you want to break 90 then break 80 and eventually break 70, then you need to focus on accuracy.

Go to the range, put in the hours, groove your swing, reduce your shot dispersion to half of what you started with, and watch your scores tumble.

All this talk of distance being the key to lower score is nonsense.

My brother is an extremely talented golfer with an awesome swing and great feel around the greens.

He hits the ball at least 30 yards further than me (I hit driver 250-270, he hits it pro distances 280-300)

According to your theory, he should easily beat me, but he can't.

Why not? Because I am more accurate.

Simon

PS My handicap is currently 5 because I took a couple of years off and lost my scratch handicap.

I rejoined a club last year, but the rules prevent them from giving me a handicap less than 5, so I have to start again :-(

[Ernest Jones]

Based on your own figures, if a 100 golfer gains 20 yards, he/she can reduce their score to 97 or 98.

If that is the limit of your ambition, then fine, focus on gaining the extra 20 yards.

If, on the other hand, you want to break 90 then break 80 and eventually break 70, then you need to focus on accuracy.

Go to the range, put in the hours, groove your swing, reduce your shot dispersion to half of what you started with, and watch your scores tumble.

All this talk of distance being the key to lower score is nonsense.

My brother is an extremely talented golfer with an awesome swing and great feel around the greens.

He hits the ball at least 30 yards further than me (I hit driver 250-270, he hits it pro distances 280-300)

According to your theory, he should easily beat me, but he can't.

Why not? Because I am more accurate.

Simon

PS My handicap is currently 5 because I took a couple of years off and lost my scratch handicap.

I rejoined a club last year, but the rules prevent them from giving me a handicap less than 5, so I have to start again :-(

I have a friend that I regularly outdrive by about 20-25 yards. I beat him every time. How's that for overwhelming statistical evidence?

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somerset Simon

Based on your own figures, if a 100 golfer gains 20 yards, he/she can reduce their score to 97 or 98.

If that is the limit of your ambition, then fine, focus on gaining the extra 20 yards.

If, on the other hand, you want to break 90 then break 80 and eventually break 70, then you need to focus on accuracy.

Go to the range, put in the hours, groove your swing, reduce your shot dispersion to half of what you started with, and watch your scores tumble.

All this talk of distance being the key to lower score is nonsense.

My brother is an extremely talented golfer with an awesome swing and great feel around the greens.

He hits the ball at least 30 yards further than me (I hit driver 250-270, he hits it pro distances 280-300)

According to your theory, he should easily beat me, but he can't.

Why not? Because I am more accurate.

Simon

PS My handicap is currently 5 because I took a couple of years off and lost my scratch handicap.

I rejoined a club last year, but the rules prevent them from giving me a handicap less than 5, so I have to start again :-(

I have a friend that I regularly outdrive by about 20-25 yards. I beat him every time. How's that for overwhelming statistical evidence?

I'll add to this with more anecdote.  I have a close friend I have played 50+ times.  He regularly out drives me by 30 yards.  If I drive 230, he drives 260.  I hit a 3W off the deck to 210.  He hits it 230. We are about equal from the 4 iron down in distance.  We both hit about the same number of fairways.  I have a much better short game.  I average 31-32 putts per round.   He averages 36.  If he chips to 6 feet, I chip to 3 feet.  From 100 yards in we are equal and I may be a bit better.

His HC is 9 and my 13.  I have only ever beaten him straight up maybe 2 times.  His advantage?  He is 30 yards down the fairway or rough from where I am.  And yes, I have broken 80 three times.

[Somerset Simon]

I have a friend that I regularly outdrive by about 20-25 yards. I beat him every time. How's that for overwhelming statistical evidence?

I'm not arguing against the statistics.

The statistics say a 100 golfer can reduce their scores to 97 or 98 if they gain 20 yards.

I totally agree with this.

What I'm saying is that anyone who wants to break 90 then break 80 and eventually break 70 needs to focus on accuracy.

Distance might lower your scores a few shots, but you need accuracy if you want to shoot really low scores.

There's no getting around this.

It is a fact, not a hypothesis or speculation.

If you want to shoot low scores, you need to go to the range, put in the hours, groove your swing, and reduce your shot dispersion.

There's no other way.

Simon

[Dave2512]

Thing is with better ball striking comes improved distance and accuracy. I have never seen a poor golfer that is consistently long.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ernest Jones

I have a friend that I regularly outdrive by about 20-25 yards. I beat him every time. How's that for overwhelming statistical evidence?

I'm not arguing against the statistics.

The statistics say a 100 golfer can reduce their scores to 97 or 98 if they gain 20 yards.

I totally agree with this.

What I'm saying is that anyone who wants to break 90 then break 80 and eventually break 70 needs to focus on accuracy.

Distance might lower your scores a few shots, but you need accuracy if you want to shoot really low scores.

There's no getting around this.

It is a fact, not a hypothesis or speculation.

If you want to shoot low scores, you need to go to the range, put in the hours, groove your swing, and reduce your shot dispersion.

There's no other way.

Simon

I think we all agree that working on accuracy is important.  Many of the forum members joined The Sand Trap to improve their golf game.  In working on improving our swings we are working on accuracy.  It is essential.  A good golf swing will be more accurate.  But I think the original question by the OP, who is a novice player, was asking whether they should leave the driver out of the bag to score lower (paraphrasing).  My reply and many others indicated that you should not because in general, you will score lower if you are further down the fairway off the tee.

Somehow the thread diverged into a debate of extremes (how unusual) of accuracy versus distance where only one would be important.

Your example above is a good one, but let me ask you this.  Once you get to be an 80s player, aren't you already near max in distance and now accuracy is the fine tuning?  My 54 year old body is not going to magically gain 40 yards off the tee because I have a relatively good swing now and my body is not really going to improve much at my age.  Now I am just working to optimize it and control the other keys in the swing that help accuracy.  So I have already gone through the phase of improving distance to get from a 100s golfer to an 80s golfer.

[billchao]

I'm not arguing against the statistics. The statistics say a 100 golfer can reduce their scores to 97 or 98 if they gain 20 yards. I totally agree with this. What I'm saying is that anyone who wants to break 90 then break 80 and eventually break 70 needs to focus on accuracy. Distance might lower your scores a few shots, but you need accuracy if you want to shoot really low scores. There's no getting around this. It is a fact, not a hypothesis or speculation. If you want to shoot low scores, you need to go to the range, put in the hours, groove your swing, and reduce your shot dispersion. There's no other way. Simon

You're not reading the chart correctly. As @iacas said, 20 yard gain in distance (roughly 7.5% improvement) gains 2.3 strokes, vs a 1° improvement in accuracy (30% improvement) which gains 1 stroke. You're just picking out bits and pieces you want and arguing them. Did you read what I posted earlier? [quote name="billchao" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/330#post_1079653"] Nobody would tell a 20 to train to improve their swing speed so their scores will drop. If that's what you got from the distance vs accuracy discussion, I think you missed the point. Obviously, a high handicap player will benefit from improved technique, which improves both distance and accuracy.[/quote]If you want to improve your scores, you have to have better technique. You really think working on your game only improves accuracy? Distance will go up from better and more consistent contact, too.

[CarlSpackler]

Did you read what I posted earlier?

If you want to improve your scores, you have to have better technique. You really think working on your game only improves accuracy? Distance will go up from better and more consistent contact, too.

^^^ This ^^^

I was going to post this same thing. Improve your swing mechanics, and you will improve distance and accuracy with more consistency in both areas.