Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[BENtSwing]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rb72

Wow, I really find that stat hard to believe. From those distances most tour pros have pitching wedge or less in their hands and it seems to me that with a pitching wedge to the green the pros ALWAYS put it on the green and are usually upset when it's not within 10 feet. But then again this takes into account the 125-150 yard shots that are not from the fairway, like shots from fairway bunkers or deep rough or hardpan on the other side of a cart path...so I guess their inaccuracy hurt them more than their longer distance helped them.

You find it hard to believe? Why, because it goes against what you believe to be true? Those are the stats; feel free to look them up yourself. They don't average 10' from the pin, either.

The 100th ranked PGA Tour player hit the green 72% of the time from 125-150 yards last year, and you're saying he has an accuracy problem? He plays golf on the PGA Tour. What's your make % from that distance?

BTW you can break down the stats from the rough vs the fairway. Golf is great like that, it's full of stats that are tracked.

Exactly. I think when people think "PGA Tour" stats, they only recall what they see on TV, which is whoever is playing GREAT on that particular day/tournament. Not every tour player is shooting par or less every tournament.

[turtleback]

I don't know if I even belong in this conversation. When I was younger I could hit my driver maybe 230. My 3 wood 210. But in fairness that was with persimmon woods. Irons were always forged muscle backs. Fast forward 30 years and I'm struggling to hit the driver 190. But I've always been straight with maybe a baby draw.  I think it comes down to fundamentals. In the "good old days" you pretty much had to have decent fundamentals or the ball wasn't getting airborne. I pretty much play the same courses and except for resort courses which were designed with gold tees, I end up playing the whites (6200-6500 yards).  Anything over 380 yards is a long par 4 but it doesn't upset me to be short and pitching my third. So for me the answer is distance.

That sounds almost exactly like both my golf history and current game.  Since I retired and moved I am playing a course that is about 6200, down from the previous course O played which was 6500.  I'm enjoying the game  lot more.

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.

But almost every long driver on the PGA tour disagrees with you and they break par regularly.  Also, several people here who have studied the matter far more than you have can break par.

Of course what the ability to break par or get it closer from 60 yards than a bogey golfer has to do with anything we are talking about is beyond me.

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

You mean the guys who could hit the fairway much more with their 3-woods but instead hit driver anyway and end up among the longest drivers?  And are punished for their temerity by finishing near the top of the money list?

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?

It is as good as  most of the arguments being made have been so far on the other side.

Wow, I really find that stat hard to believe. From those distances most tour pros have pitching wedge or less in their hands and it seems to me that with a pitching wedge to the green the pros ALWAYS put it on the green and are usually upset when it's not within 10 feet.

In any given week you are watching the best on tour at this while they are playing their best.  That is who gets to be on TV.  It is not surprising that you find it hard to believe those stats because you probably have not seen a single shot in that range from about 90% of those guys.

Statistical evidence: I outdrive all but three of the women in my club by 50 or more yards. Over half of them beat me every round. According to stats, I should be a single digit handicap player. I am not. According to the stats they should be 30+ handicappers. They're not. They're 15-20 handicappers. They keep the ball in play. I can even out drive some of the single digit handicap players. These people keep the ball in play. They avoid trouble. They get the ball on the green and they putt out. I on the other hand make way too many mistakes. I miss too many shots. I block a shot or I pull a shot. I shank a shot.

In statistics we would call that an outlier.

[DrvFrShow]

@turtleback exactly why I've been protesting about being lumped in with the "there's no way you should be able to hit the ball that far with your handicap." It's the way I described playing that 500 yd par 5. You drop my data point from the statistics. You look at that long drive and derive the potential - and don't call BS about what I'm playing now. You say - okay so she could perhaps play single digits health permitting. It'll take work. I have a lot of skills to learn. That's why I'm practicing now. I want to get better, but I need to heal up from a forearm injury first.

[mvmac]

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

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

You need to look at the chart again. As Erik said, " 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."

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

No one is disagreeing with that, the better your mechanics get the farther and more accurate you'll hit it. The question is whether distance is important to amateurs and the answer is yes.

Originally Posted by rb72

Wow, I really find that stat hard to believe. From those distances most tour pros have pitching wedge or less in their hands and it seems to me that with a pitching wedge to the green the pros ALWAYS put it on the green and are usually upset when it's not within 10 feet.

Maybe take that as a cue that your perception isn't always the reality. We can always keep learning and evolving, I know I have. I grew up with a lot of myths that have been busted the last several years.

BTW you can break down the stats from the rough vs the fairway. Golf is great like that, it's full of stats that are tracked.

Nah, it's better to just stick with my own experience so it supports my argument

[Somerset Simon]

A quick question regarding the stats...

Do they take into account wind speed and direction?

I only ask because if the sample points are all gathered into a single sample, then the longer drives will normally be wind behind and shorter drives wind against.

This will greatly affect the accuracy of the approach, as it's much more difficult to keep the ball straight into a head wind.

Therefore, if the stats have not been grouped by wind speed and direction, then they will greatly exaggerate the advantage of being closer to the hole.

[mvmac]

A quick question regarding the stats...

Do they take into account wind speed and direction?

I only ask because if the sample points are all gathered into a single sample, then the longer drives will normally be wind behind and shorter drives wind against.

This will greatly affect the accuracy of the approach, as it's much more difficult to keep the ball straight into a head wind.

Therefore, if the stats have not been grouped by wind speed and direction, then they will greatly exaggerate the advantage of being closer to the hole.

Huh? You're going to have a better chance at hitting the green/getting closer to the hole from 120 yards than from 150 yards no matter what the wind conditions are. Being closer results in lowers scores.

[Ernest Jones]

A quick question regarding the stats...

Do they take into account wind speed and direction?

I only ask because if the sample points are all gathered into a single sample, then the longer drives will normally be wind behind and shorter drives wind against.

This will greatly affect the accuracy of the approach, as it's much more difficult to keep the ball straight into a head wind.

Therefore, if the stats have not been grouped by wind speed and direction, then they will greatly exaggerate the advantage of being closer to the hole.

Holy Friggin' Moly! Are you still trying to convince people that they are better off FARTHER from the hole?????

I mean, I can understand the folks that are arguing that accuracy trumps distance (I think they are completely missing the point, but I can understand how someone can make that mistake) but you almost seem to be saying that you're better off FARTHER AWAY FROM THE HOLE...

Originally Posted by mvmac

Huh? You're going to have a better chance at hitting the green/getting closer to the hole from 120 yards than from 150 yards no matter what the wind conditions are. Being closer results in lowers scores.

No effin' kidding. Your degree is in the mail...

[Somerset Simon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somerset Simon

A quick question regarding the stats...

Do they take into account wind speed and direction?

I only ask because if the sample points are all gathered into a single sample, then the longer drives will normally be wind behind and shorter drives wind against.

This will greatly affect the accuracy of the approach, as it's much more difficult to keep the ball straight into a head wind.

Therefore, if the stats have not been grouped by wind speed and direction, then they will greatly exaggerate the advantage of being closer to the hole.

Huh? You're going to have a better chance at hitting the green/getting closer to the hole from 120 yards than from 150 yards no matter what the wind conditions are. Being closer results in lowers scores.

It was a simple yes/no question.

"Huh?" suggests you don't understands statistics.

If you did, you would know that it is very difficult to isolate a single variable in a complex environment.

I am just checking he has taken basic precautions to ensure his statistics are not seriously biased.

There are dozens of other factors that could bias the results. Wind speed and direction are just a couple of the more obvious ones.

Probably he has taken these into account, but I am just checking.

Simon

[Phil McGleno]

Yes.-Averages all conditions. Pretty sure the guy knows more about statistics than you do Mr. Masters Math Man.

It was a simple yes/no question.

"Huh?" suggests you don't understands statistics.

If you did, you would know that it is very difficult to isolate a single variable in a complex environment.

I am just checking he has taken basic precautions to ensure his statistics are not seriously biased.

There are dozens of other factors that could bias the results. Wind speed and direction are just a couple of the more obvious ones.

Probably he has taken these into account, but I am just checking.

Simon

Maybe people said 'Huh?' because you didn't even tell people what stats you were talking about.

[Somerset Simon]

Yes.-Averages mean all conditions. Pretty sure the guy knows more about statistics than you do Mr. Masters Math Man.

If he has lumped everything into a single group, then clearly he doesn't know as much as you think he does.

If this is true, then his results will be seriously biased because the longer shots will be mainly into a head wind and the shorter shots mainly with a tail wind, greatly exaggerating the advantage of being closer.

Not saying there isn't an advantage to being closer, but there have been a lot of very confident claims about precisely how many shots you can save by hitting the ball 20 yards further.

If he really has lumped everything into a single group, then those claims are probably quite significantly exaggerated.

Simon

[mvmac]

It was a simple yes/no question.

"Huh?" suggests you don't understands statistics.

I said "Huh?" because it seems like you thought there was a particular wind condition where being farther away from the hole was an advantage.

[Phil McGleno]

WHat are you even saying? You still have not even clarified what data youre talking about, now youre questioning the methods of a guy who consults with the PGA Tour on their statistics? Okay pal.

If he has lumped everything into a single group, then clearly he doesn't know as much as you think he does.

What is he supposed to do: break the stats into "approaches from 150 yards into a 5-10 MPH headwind that is 0 to 30° from the player's left?"

What are you even talking about?-Start over.

If this is true, then his results will be seriously biased because the longer shots will be mainly into a head wind and the shorter shots mainly with a tail wind, greatly exaggerating the advantage of being closer.

There is a HUGE ADVANTAGE to being closer to the hole. Yeah, OK, Mark Brodie is the dumb one, not you, uh huh-Not buying it Simple Simon the Math Master Man.

Not saying there isn't an advantage to being closer, but there have been a lot of very confident claims about precisely how many shots you can save by hitting the ball 20 yards further.

From 150 yards a player is going to, on average (ALL WIND conditions) be closer to the hole than if that player hit the same shots under the same conditions from 175.

Not a difficult concept for those of us with brains.

[jamo]

If he has lumped everything into a single group, then clearly he doesn't know as much as you think he does. If this is true, then his results will be seriously biased because the longer shots will be mainly into a head wind and the shorter shots mainly with a tail wind, greatly exaggerating the advantage of being closer. Not saying there isn't an advantage to being closer, but there have been a lot of very confident claims about precisely how many shots you can save by hitting the ball 20 yards further. If he really has lumped everything into a single group, then those claims are probably quite significantly exaggerated. Simon

What the hell are you talking about?

[Somerset Simon]

What the hell are you talking about?

People who understand statistics will know exactly what I'm talking about.

People who don't will laugh at me and give you a thumbs up for your mickey taking comments.

At the end of the day, you believe that improving distance is the key factor for lowering scores, whereas I believe accuracy is key.

Pretty sure if I had only ever improved my distance, I would have never got below 18 handicap.

But I worked on accuracy and got down to +1 despite being a very short hitter compared to most.

Anyway, I've said all I want to say on this thread.

Good luck to everyone, whatever side of the fence you're on.

Simon

[bste]

Okay 22 pages. Here is my experience - I can push, fade, slice everything from driver down to five iron. Nothing is going left, so if I take my 3 wood off the tee, I'm not only further from my destination, I've got another longer iron to get to where I need to be, yes I said need . Your statistics, outliers and any other arguments are lost on me. LSW

Thanks Brian

[Phil McGleno]

That is what someone who deosnt know what the **** he is talking about says. Answer the question.-State what you are talking about clearly. There has been no manipulation of the data based on wind.

People who understand statistics will know exactly what I'm talking about.
People who don't will laugh at me and give you a thumbs up for your mickey taking comments.

Nobody is syaing it is the key factor.-Nobody is saying that you should only EVER IMPROVE YOUR DISTANCE. Mr.Math Masters Man you seem to have trouble reading basic English.

At the end of the day, you believe that improving distance is the key factor for lowering scores, whereas I believe accuracy is key.
Pretty sure if I had only ever improved my distance, I would have never got below 18 handicap.

Exactly-You had to be way more accurate than others to make up for the fact that you were a peashooter. If you had more distance youd have been just as successful without having to be as accurate. You were tapped out -hitting the ball as far as you could.

Even you would not have given up 30 yards for an extra degree of accuracy, and you would have been smart to TAKE 30 yards even if it CoST you a degree of accuracy.

But I worked on accuracy and got down to +1 despite being a very short hitter compared to most.

Duh.

[inthehole]

Just seems to me there are no absolutes ... Simon got better than scratch by being accurate - it was a conscious decision on his part & it clearly worked (for him).    However, more golfers get that good by hitting longer at the expense of accuracy - it's been clearly proven.     I think the one thing we all can agree on is that MOST (not all ... i.e. Simon) players can get the best out of their game by being longer off the tee ...

PS - I still think the decision maker in how you approach length off the tee is how ROUGH is the rough wherever you play golf  ...

I haven't kept up with this thread, but I think it all boils down to how ROUGH is the rough on a given course.    If its not terribly penal, sure, 140 from reasonable rough is better than 165 from the fairway.   However, if the rough is high, I'm swinging more in control and 100% focusing on keeping it in the short grass, anticipating a longer approach shot ...

Another thing I don't think has been mentioned is that when you wind up in the rough (at least on the mountain courses around here) ... the angle into the green often becomes an issue and raises the degree of difficulty, plus there are usually a strategically placed tree or two forward that come into play, creating obstacles that you have to hit over, around or under -  all of which is avoided if you hit the fairway.

So again, I'd rather have a STRAIGHT in shot from the fairway even at a longer distance by and large than deal with heavier rough, bad angles and large leafy obstacles on my approach shot.

[Phil McGleno]

What Simon refuses to acknowledge is that he was hitting the ball as far as he could and had to become freakishly accurate just to keep up with longer hitting, less accurate golfers. Simon was disadvantaged so he had to become more accurate. He would have been a fool to give up 30 more yards for an extra degree of accuracy and would have been a fool to not take 30 more yards if it cost him a degree of accuracy.

Just seems to me there are no absolutes ... Simon got better than scratch by being accurate - it was a conscious decision on his part & it worked (for him).    However, [U]more[/U] golfers get that good by hitting longer at the expense of accuracy - it's been clearly proven.     I think the one thing we all can agree on is that MOST (not all ... i.e. Simon) players can get the best out of their game by being longer off the tee ...

Many ways to play the game but generally speaking distance is a slightly bigger advantage than accuracy.