Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[Somerset Simon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somerset Simon

I thought I would join an interesting discussion on distance vs accuracy, but it seems everyone has already made up their minds and are only interested in abusing people who do not agree with their opinions.

Lesson learnt, I will stay away from forum discussions in future.

Simon, man to man, straight up: you're coming off as the one who will not accept anything. You're alleging bias because something doesn't back up your experience. You're alleging bias against a guy with a higher degree than you (you're the one who threw out your Masters degree in math earlier). You're alleging bias against a guy who is consulting for the PGA Tour.

There's been no abuse of you, but rather, your inability to have an open mind and consider the concepts being shown.

…

You're arguing against a lot of things nobody is saying. I've said accuracy is important. Broadie says it too. He (and I, and others) are just saying distance is a little bit more important. There are going to be exceptions. You may be one of them. But by and large (i.e. in general), distance is a little more important than accuracy.

Thank you for the detailed reply.

I really didn't intend to lecture people, just offer a different viewpoint.

And a little ray of hope to short hitters, who I still believe can beat the long guys if they work hard enough :-)

Simon

[iacas]

You keep arguing against things nobody is saying. That's called "straw man" arguments.

To me, it seems clear that there is a point where extra distance leads to diminishing returns, and possibly even negative returns if you hit it so far that you can't keep it in play.

Nobody is saying you should try to hit it so far that you hit it out of play.

The reason I mentioned my national junior championship and Gary Wolstenholme's two British Amateur titles was because I wanted to give examples that show that distance is not everything.

Single examples do not prove anything, except that something is not always true. There are more examples where distance is an advantage.

Plus, it's not like you or Gary drive the ball 225. You hit the ball, as you have said, "far enough." You're well to the right in the "bubble chart" shown before.

I might be wrong, maybe distance is way more important than accuracy, but I don't think I deserve the abuse I have received for offering a different point of view and questioning the statistics.

Once again, a straw man.

And you've not received any abuse.

[Lihu]

@Somerset Simon It's good that you want to provide a ray of hope for people who currently hit short, but a better way is to provide a means for them to hit farther. The average male amateur hits 205 yards on a good day. This means that they need all the distance they can get. Many men hit 170 on average, and this is just not enough distance to score low. Even many of the ads you see where they "say add 40 yards" is assuming this distance, and they can get their drives out to 205-210 yards. If they want to venture to shoot low 80s, they need at least 10% more distance. High 70s, 10% more. If you take 40 yards from your drives, I would guess you would add 5-10 strokes to your 5 HC. It's easy enough to test.

[billchao]

If you take 40 yards from your drives, I would guess you would add 5-10 strokes to your 5 HC. It's easy enough to test.

Yup, I mentioned it before. Take out everything longer than a 5i, play 20 rounds from your usual set of tees. Happy golfing :-)

[Ernest Jones]

Yup, I mentioned it before. Take out everything longer than a 5i, play 20 rounds from your usual set of tees. Happy golfing

Better yet, play with your full set but pick up every ball and walk it back 15% and take a drop there.

[billchao]

Better yet, play with your full set but pick up every ball and walk it back 15% and take a drop there.

Well they want to increase their accuracy at the cost of distance, so I figured this would yield the best experiment, devoid of outside manipulation.

[Somerset Simon]

Well they want to increase their accuracy at the cost of distance, so I figured this would yield the best experiment, devoid of outside manipulation.

I don't want to start another round of "go live in a cave" style abuse, but I don't think anyone is suggesting giving up distance.

Just saying it's not all doom and gloom if you're not a long hitter.

There are plenty of (relatively) short hitters who compete successfully against longer hitters.

They compete by playing to their strengths (accuracy) rather than trying to match their opponents on distance.

At amateur level golf is not that serious.

Play your own game your own way and enjoy the challenge.

There is more than one way to be successful.

Simon

[bste]

Play your own game your own way and enjoy the challenge.

There is more than one way to be successful.

Simon

Thank you for giving us "short hitters " hope. While working to get accuracy I won't give up hitting the club for the distance.

I'd take Bubba's drives over mine every time, actually I'd take any good players drive over mine, there's a thread about that.

[billchao]

I don't want to start another round of "go live in a cave" style abuse, but I don't think anyone is suggesting giving up distance.

It wasn't you, but somebody earlier was suggesting that increased distance = worse scores because of errant drives. Then there was some back and forth about conducting an experiment by walking the tee shots 40 extra yards and what not, it was all kind of ridiculous really. So my suggestion to those who believed distance wasn't important is to try it in their own game.

[newtogolf]

I don't want to start another round of "go live in a cave" style abuse, but I don't think anyone is suggesting giving up distance.

Just saying it's not all doom and gloom if you're not a long hitter.

There are plenty of (relatively) short hitters who compete successfully against longer hitters.

They compete by playing to their strengths (accuracy) rather than trying to match their opponents on distance.

At amateur level golf is not that serious.

Play your own game your own way and enjoy the challenge.

There is more than one way to be successful.

Simon

You are absolutely right, nothing we're saying here is 100%, like any statistical analysis there are outliers, you are an outlier in that you can successfully compete against longer hitters who are less accurate.

What you refuse to accept is that you are an outlier and your individual experiences are but one data point in millions of data points that contradict your personal experiences.

[iacas]

I don't want to start another round of "go live in a cave" style abuse, but I don't think anyone is suggesting giving up distance.

You're partially right. Some have argued for giving up distance if you gain accuracy. And in some cases, that holds… if you're so wild because you are, for example, trying to swing too hard, then dialing it back makes sense.

Also, nobody told you to go live in a cave IIRC. I made some references to the Allegory of the Cave, though. I feel it applies to some.

Just saying it's not all doom and gloom if you're not a long hitter.

Straw man. Nobody is saying it is or that you have to be a "long hitter." Most amateur golfers are NOT long hitters. If they were, they'd be roughly average hitters. :)

There are plenty of (relatively) short hitters who compete successfully against longer hitters.

More straw men - nobody has said there aren't. But, there are more longer hitters than the shorter ones who compete. Distance is an advantage. Speed is an advantage in nearly every sport.

Simon, man, enough with the straw men. They're so easy to burn.

You are absolutely right, nothing we're saying here is 100%, like any statistical analysis there are outliers, you are an outlier in that you can successfully compete against longer hitters who are less accurate.

What you refuse to accept is that you are an outlier and your individual experiences are but one data point in millions of data points that contradict your personal experiences.

QFT.

[Somerset Simon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Somerset Simon

I don't want to start another round of "go live in a cave" style abuse, but I don't think anyone is suggesting giving up distance.

Just saying it's not all doom and gloom if you're not a long hitter.

There are plenty of (relatively) short hitters who compete successfully against longer hitters.

They compete by playing to their strengths (accuracy) rather than trying to match their opponents on distance.

At amateur level golf is not that serious.

Play your own game your own way and enjoy the challenge.

There is more than one way to be successful.

Simon

You are absolutely right, nothing we're saying here is 100%, like any statistical analysis there are outliers, you are an outlier in that you can successfully compete against longer hitters who are less accurate.

What you refuse to accept is that you are an outlier and your individual experiences are but one data point in millions of data points that contradict your personal experiences.

You're wrong about that.

I know I'm an outlier.

So is Gary Wolstenholme

So is Graeme McDowell

So was Jose Maria Olazabal (one of my role models)

So is Bubba Watson

So is Rory McIlroy

So was Tiger Woods

Almost everyone is an outlier in some way or another.

Each person needs to play to their own strengths.

Trying to force yourself to fit a statistically optimal model probably isn't going to work for a lot of people.

I know it wouldn't have worked for me.

Simon

[newtogolf]

You're wrong about that.

I know I'm an outlier.

So is Gary Wolstenholme

So is Graeme McDowell

So was Jose Maria Olazabal (one of my role models)

So is Bubba Watson

So is Rory McIlroy

So was Tiger Woods

Almost everyone is an outlier in some way or another.

Each person needs to play to their own strengths.

Trying to force yourself to fit a statistically optimal model probably isn't going to work for a lot of people.

I know it wouldn't have worked for me.

Simon

This is where you still miss the point.  The intent of the data is to point out the relative benefit distance has over accuracy for a generic amateur.  You keep referring to yourself and pro's to refute the data which does nothing but demonstrate you still don't understand the concept of the thread and data.

If you hit the ball 30 yards shorter than you do today, would you still win as much?

[iacas]

Trying to force yourself to fit a statistically optimal model probably isn't going to work for a lot of people.

More straw men. There is no "statistically optimal model" and nobody has said that there is.

[turtleback]

You're wrong about that.

I know I'm an outlier.

So is Gary Wolstenholme

So is Graeme McDowell

So was Jose Maria Olazabal (one of my role models)

So is Bubba Watson

So is Rory McIlroy

So was Tiger Woods

Almost everyone is an outlier in some way or another.

Each person needs to play to their own strengths.

Trying to force yourself to fit a statistically optimal model probably isn't going to work for a lot of people.

I know it wouldn't have worked for me.

Simon

That is not what an outlier is.  The fact that everyone is unique does not make them outliers.  You're getting silly now, since someone wit your math background should know very well that you are distorting the notion of statistical outlier..

And no one suggested that anyone force themselves into a statistically optimal model so you are still arguing against things that no one has ever argued FOR.

Why don't you try actually listening and considering the arguments being made to see if they are valid instead of just ignoring them and focusing only on the next thing you are going to say?

[Dave2512]

Why don't you try actually listening and considering the arguments being made to see if they are valid instead of just ignoring them and focusing only on the next thing you are going to say?

this

[Somerset Simon]

This is where you still miss the point.  The intent of the data is to point out the relative benefit distance has over accuracy for a generic amateur.  You keep referring to yourself and pro's to refute the data which does nothing but demonstrate you still don't understand the concept of the thread and data.

If you hit the ball 30 yards shorter than you do today, would you still win as much?

No, I wouldn't win as much.

Losing 30 yards would definitely cost me shots, because I only just hit the ball "far enough" and I can't afford to lose distance.

But gaining 30 yards probably wouldn't make as much difference to my score as losing 30 yards because it's getting into the realm of diminishing returns.

This is where I think I struggle with your theory.

If an 18 handicap golfer is only hitting 30% of fairways, then my opinion (it's only an opinion, I know) is that they too are also in the realm of diminishing returns, even if they only hit it 180.

This is because adding distance is going to push 70% of their drives deeper into the rough, and it's difficult to imagine how that could be beneficial.

Certainly not on good courses such as Burnham & Berrow (http://burnhamandberrowgolfclub.co.uk/) or Saunton (http://www.sauntongolf.co.uk/) where you are lucky to find your ball if it goes more than 10 yards off the fairway.

I'm not saying this applies to all courses, but it applies to quite a few in the UK.

Do you understand where I'm coming from?

Simon

[billchao]

If an 18 handicap golfer is only hitting 30% of fairways, then my opinion (it's only an opinion, I know) is that they too are also in the realm of diminishing returns, even if they only hit it 180. This is because adding distance is going to push 70% of their drives deeper into the rough, and it's difficult to imagine how that could be beneficial.

Or they could hit a hybrid instead of a driver when they need to, hit it the same distance but more accurate. Then they'll have a shorter club in their hand on the approach than they did previously. Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?