Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[rb72]

I've been silent and let some dopey things be said for a bit too long now. I couldn't see the screen with all the forehead slapping Ive been doing lately-Consider it my Thanksgiving gift to those members who havent undergone a holiday lobotomy.

So your example of someone who is bad or doesnt get it is someone who has won more majors than almost anyone in the last 30 years? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Good one!-Phil sucks!

Way to read the chart Super Genius Math Masters Degree Man.-Duh, thats not how the chart works.

If you never again say 'in my experience' it will be too soon. Your experience is bogus poppycock that you can distort to suit the point of view that you CLEARLY are not LIKE EVAR going to be dissuaded from giving Mr Math Masters Degree Super Genius Hero in a Half Shell

Dope #3-You find FACTS hard to believe?-Go look them up.-Then you twist it around to imply that their poor driving accuracy is why they miss so many greens from 125-150?-The lengths you guys will go to to stick to your guns is incredible. Heaven forbid someone try to help you by pointing out things,No-You just want to stay blind.

Pros still hit greens at a good rate from 135 yards out in the rough.

What table is that which shows .1 degrees is 1 yard? Dont see it. And if it was in a table somewhere I dont think its arbitrary and you cant just make it .5?

NObody cares about your own personal stuff. NOBODY except you. This thread is not about you.-People have said several times its for general discussion. YOu may be an exception. Good for you.-Maybe Math Masters Genius can give you a sucker.

I multi quoted it but it didn't show up here. It's back around page 15 or 16 where it holds as a constant 2 degrees of accuracy lost for 20 yards gained over multiple skill ranges to show strokes gained/lost. If you did in fact change it to .5 (10 degrees/ 20 yards) it would strongly indicate that the loss in accuracy vs. the distance gained would result in higher scores. But  I don't think you have to go as far as .5. .2 would certainly do it. And in the following table that he posted about 5 or 6 pages later he's actually using .05 degrees as an arbitrarily chosen (see; hypothetical/made up) number to make a similar point

Category	Driving Distance	20 Yards %	Driving Accuracy	1° %
100 Golfer	195	10%	7°	14%
90 Golfer	225	9%	6.5°	15%
80 Golfer	245	8%	6°	17%
PGA Tour	295	7%	3.5°	29%

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.

Listen, I only meant that that was surprising to me. I did not mean to dispute it. I believe it. I was not using this statement of surprise to put forth any argument in support of my position on the topic at hand, hence my next statement about getting back on topic.

Let me attempt to put a cap on things, and summarize a few things from my point of view.

First, I elaborate and provide a way for every golfer to build a GamePlan that fits each person individually (and each shot they face at any given time on any given hole) in Lowest Score Wins. Everyone can use the principles in the book and, after building their own Shot Zones, very clearly, quickly, and accurately choose the best play on the course for themselves, and when they're practicing, improve both distance AND accuracy by working on the appropriate skills with the highest Separation Value.

This thread, however, is about generalities. To put it another way, it is not about any one person's experience(s) or what they think is true.

A lot of golf's "common sense" are, in fact, bogus. Everyone would be well advised to consider that if it's one of golf's old adages, it's probably wrong. A great many of these have been disproven recently. I encourage everyone to open their minds. It's by opening my mind that I've been able to accomplish what I have accomplished in golf and in golf instruction.

Golf is, as I stated before, a two-dimensional problem. As golfers we need both distance AND accuracy. Distance and accuracy are always factors. Even if distance is half as important as accuracy (it's not, but go with it for a second), that means 33% of golf is distance. Even THAT is enough to all it "important." Thus, the answer to the question in the thread title is an unequivocal "YES!"

This thread, however, seems to be discussing the relative importance of the two. I'm of the opinion, based on what I feel is a fair amount of knowledge and data, and research conducted by myself and others, that it distance is more important than accuracy. Longer hitters have advantages that you cannot make up for with accuracy. Longer hitters win more tournaments, finish higher on the money list, and are ranked higher in the OWGR than their shorter hitting friends. Speed is an advantage in EVERY sport; golf is no different.

I think it's completely pointless to make up scenarios, hypothetical situations, etc.

Heck, the biggest number on the chart is 11°!!!!

And here's the thing, too: nobody who finds a 100-shooting golfer who drives the ball 220 and is 10° off is going to tell the guy to work on hitting it farther. He's about as crazy wild a driver as you'll see. He's also a massive exception to the rule: most guys who hit it 220 are about 6.5° accurate.

I've marked that graph up to draw lines to both axes from the middle of each oval. Here's what we find are the averages, as well as the percentage improvement for both gaining 20 yards and gaining 1° of accuracy:

Category

Driving Distance

20 Yards %

Driving Accuracy

1° %

100 Golfer

195

10%

7°

14%

90 Golfer

225

9%

6.5°

15%

80 Golfer

245

8%

6°

17%

PGA Tour

295

7%

3.5°

29%

.

Okay, but you're all unique flowers, unique snowflakes.

We know that.

Passive aggressive insult.

Recap:

Distance and accuracy are both important.

Distance is a little bit more important. Without it, you have to work MUCH harder and be significantly more accurate than a longer hitter, who can often hit less club and be just as accurate as you.

If you're an outlier, congratulations. Work on the outlier piece if you can. If you're old and not going to gain distance, do what you can to hit it more accurately. If you're young, learn to hit it about as far as you can, so long as the vast majority of your tee shots stay "inside the ropes."

What do any of you do about all of this?

Look, I share this information because I want people to get better. If you want to ignore it, it doesn't hurt me at all. Not one bit. It may hurt you, but that's your choice.

Happy Thanksgiving.

My argument is not even the same as Somerset Simon's. I'm not insistent that accuracy is more important I am stating that the question cannot be answered with statistics. You've stated that these are generalities and have nothing to do with individual experiences but I contend the answer to this question can ONLY be answered on an individual basis and that fact is highlighted by the tables that you have provided because they consistently hold the value for accuracy lost per distance gained as a constant through all levels. That seems like an obvious manipulation.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong (please try to do so without insulting me) but in the graph above, for the 100 golfer and the 90 golfer the area of the oval above the baseline is greater than the area below. Does that not indicate that more of those golfers need to focus on accuracy rather than distance? And the 80 golfer's oval is closer to 50/50 in area above and below which tells me that the better you are the more you should focus on distance. No?

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

I agree, I think that many if not most of the supporters of the "distance is more important" position, seem to be defensive, hostile and insulting and I can't imagine why. You can say "no abuse here" all you want but that's how you're coming across. Like we're talking about whether we should raise your taxes. Relax.

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 see the increase in accuracy gained by moving the ball back 15 yards.

[Somerset Simon]

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?

I find it hard to imagine that anyone who is over 25 and has been playing 5+ years could ever gain so much distance that they could hit a hybrid as far as they used to hit a driver.

With respect, I think that's fairly unrealistic.

[billchao]

I agree, I think that many if not most of the supporters of the "distance is more important" position, seem to be defensive, hostile and insulting and I can't imagine why. You can say "no abuse here" all you want but that's how you're coming across. Like we're talking about whether we should raise your taxes. Relax.

Find me some quotes where you think somebody's been abusive.

I don't see the increase in accuracy gained by moving the ball back 15 yards.

I never said anything about moving the ball back. I said play without your driver, woods, and hybrids. You'll automatically gain accuracy because the shorter clubs are more accurate.

I find it hard to imagine that anyone who is over 25 and has been playing 5+ years could ever gain so much distance that they could hit a hybrid as far as they used to hit a driver.

With respect, I think that's fairly unrealistic.

You said that gaining 30 yards wouldn't do much to contribute to your score, then implied the same for an 18. Your hypothetical never said anything about it being realistic to gain the distance. PGA Tour players hit their hybrids as far or farther than most amateurs hit their drivers, so it's not out of possibility that if someone magically gained distance, he could hit his hybrid as far as his old driver.

[bplewis24]

I'm going to take a simplistic and narrow view in response to the question: distance is not that important for amateurs because you can always select a shorter set of tees.  And most public courses I've played have middle tees that aren't very long at all.

[mvmac]

@Somerset Simon and @rb72 please stop using the victim card. No one has been abusive towards you guys. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are being rude or abusive.

I suggest both you guys read this post again, I don't think either of you got what some of us are saying.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/396#post_1079840

Originally Posted by Somerset Simon

because I wanted to give examples that show that distance is not everything.

I thought I could add a different point of view to the discussion because I have first hand experience of competing as a short hitter.

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.

You say you want to have a discussion but post stuff like this. No one is saying "distance is everything" or "distance is way more important". It's hard to have a discussion with someone when they don't actually read what has been posted. Distance and accuracy are both important, we're just saying that distance is a little more important. Our opinions are based on data from some smart people that have researched thousands of rounds, not just from our own personal experience.

[iacas]

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.

It's not anyone's theory, and most amateurs are not approaching the realm of diminishing returns.

Your posts have straw men everywhere, with a dash of egocentrism (i.e. over-weighting what you believe your experiences to be).

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.

:sigh: Straw man. Nobody is telling that guy to hit it farther as his first priority. Though as his golf swing improves he'll undoubtedly hit it farther AND more accurately.

Do you understand where I'm coming from?

Yes - a fixed and very narrow point of view.

My argument is not even the same as Somerset Simon's. I'm not insistent that accuracy is more important I am stating that the question cannot be answered with statistics. You've stated that these are generalities and have nothing to do with individual experiences but I contend the answer to this question can ONLY be answered on an individual basis…

This thread is about the general relative importance of distance to amateurs. Generally, distance is a little bit more important than accuracy. It's even true that it's relatively more important to higher scoring golfers than lower scoring golfers, to the point where 1° and 20 yards save an equal number of strokes at the PGA Tour level (but again, at that level, 1° is a 29% improvement while 20 yards is a 7% improvement).

Also, correct me if I'm wrong (please try to do so without insulting me) but in the graph above, for the 100 golfer and the 90 golfer the area of the oval above the baseline is greater than the area below. Does that not indicate that more of those golfers need to focus on accuracy rather than distance?

You don't know the density of the data points inside the bubbles. It could be centrally weighted, evenly distributed, or perimeter weighted. The latter two are far less likely, though - odds are the data points favor the center and are fairly close to the trend line.

The text says if you're substantially far from the trendline in one direction or the other, you should work toward it. If you're above it, work on accuracy. If you're below it, work on distance if you can.

And the 80 golfer's oval is closer to 50/50 in area above and below which tells me that the better you are the more you should focus on distance. No?

No, you're trying to read data into the chart when you aren't able to see all of the data (you still don't know what the distribution of the data points is inside the bubbles). Distance means less as you get better (but accuracy is also more difficult to improve as you reach the point of diminishing returns with accuracy, too, as you do with distance), but it still means quite a bit.

The last bit was addressed by Mike above.

---

@rb72 , @Somerset Simon - I invite the both of you to check out the other few thousand threads here that may interest you. If you are passionate about golf, you're welcome here at TST. Check out the Swing Thoughts forum, the instructional forum, the Member Swings, the Rules of Golf, Golf Talk, Tour Talk… etc.

[Dave2512]

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.

An 18 handicap golfer struggles with everything. They are inconsistent with both distance and accuracy. But if they improve their ball striking everything improves due to better contact. We've all been there and remember what it was like.

[rb72]

This thread is about the general relative importance of distance to amateurs. Generally, distance is a little bit more important than accuracy. It's even true that it's relatively more important to higher scoring golfers than lower scoring golfers, to the point where 1° and 20 yards save an equal number of strokes at the PGA Tour level (but again, at that level, 1° is a 29% improvement while 20 yards is a 7% improvement).

You don't know the density of the data points inside the bubbles. It could be centrally weighted, evenly distributed, or perimeter weighted. The latter two are far less likely, though - odds are the data points favor the center and are fairly close to the trend line.

The text says if you're substantially far from the trendline in one direction or the other, you should work toward it. If you're above it, work on accuracy. If you're below it, work on distance if you can.

No, you're trying to read data into the chart when you aren't able to see all of the data (you still don't know what the distribution of the data points is inside the bubbles). Distance means less as you get better (but accuracy is also more difficult to improve as you reach the point of diminishing returns with accuracy, too, as you do with distance), but it still means quite a bit.

The last bit was addressed by Mike above.

@rb72 , @Somerset Simon - I invite the both of you to check out the other few thousand threads here that may interest you. If you are passionate about golf, you're welcome here at TST. Check out the Swing Thoughts forum, the instructional forum, the Member Swings, the Rules of Golf, Golf Talk, Tour Talk… etc.

Yes but it does show that the accuracy extremes are greater for the 100 player than the 80 player which is exactly why I think the methods used, where you hold the accuracy lost value constant throughout the different skill levels is invalid.

[Dave2512]

These abuse claims are just an attempt to take the discussion further off line. Basically "I can't accept the data" so I will move the goal posts. Seriously if you are offended by any of that it's time to move on and stop reading and posting in this thread. The facts are there either you accept it or you don't either way nobody cares. What gets silly is continuing to refute the facts with anecdotal evidence and unique scenarios that don't change the answer.

[iacas]

Yes but it does show that the accuracy extremes are greater for the 100 player than the 80 player which is exactly why I think the methods used, where you hold the accuracy lost value constant throughout the different skill levels is invalid.

Then give the 100 golfer 10% improvement in both. So his 195-yard drives now go about 215, and his 7° accuracy is now 6.3°. EVERY player was given a larger boost to his accuracy in that simulation than to his distance. You'd see an even bigger gap than the 10% and 27% that he was given (2° improvement to 7.5°).

It feels like you're now trying to pick at nits in order to claim some small victory. The victories are there for the taking… but not when you consider that nobody has said this all applies exactly as written to everyone who will ever play or has ever played golf. It's a generalization.

Seriously, check out the other sections of the site. Take a breath. Everyone here loves golf.

Well, except @mvmac . He loves to practice golf.

[Ernest Jones]

Well, except @mvmac. He loves to practice golf.

Lol.

[rb72]

Let me sum up MY position. "The statement that "distance is slightly more important than accuracy in lowering scores" has no meaning because it fails to quantify either value. Quantifying one value and not the other also has no meaning. The statement that "a distance gained to accuracy lost ratio of 1:1.2 or better will help in lowering scores" has meaning.

[iacas]

Let me sum up MY position. "The statement that "distance is slightly more important than accuracy in lowering scores" has no meaning because it fails to quantify either value. Quantifying one value and not the other also has no meaning. The statement that "a distance gained to accuracy lost ratio of 1:1.2 or better will help in lowering scores" has meaning.

You can get the quantities several ways.

One that was used from ESC is that 20 yards is equally (and only then at the PGA Tour level, so OT for this thread) or more important than 1° improvement in accuracy (despite accounting for a much smaller % improvement). The ratios are right there for you if you want to make them.

No, the phrase you quoted doesn't have any quantifications in it. But… and I thought this was obvious… it's based on all of the data, studies, stats, research, etc.

[rb72]

You can get the quantities several ways.

One that was used from ESC is that 20 yards is equally (and only then at the PGA Tour level, so OT for this thread) or more important than 1° improvement in accuracy (despite accounting for a much smaller % improvement). The ratios are right there for you if you want to make them.

No, the phrase you quoted doesn't have any quantifications in it. But… and I thought this was obvious… it's based on all of the data, studies, stats, research, etc.

I'm sorry it's really not about being right it's about understanding. What those tables say is, IF your gain of 20 yards creates a 1 deg. loss in accuracy THEN the added distance will lower your score. I would not dispute that, but that is not the same as saying distance is more important than accuracy in terms of lowering you score because IF the same 20 yards results in a 3 degree loss in accuracy THEN the added distance will not help you score.

[iacas]

I'm sorry it's really not about being right it's about understanding. What those tables say is, IF your gain of 20 yards creates a 1 deg. loss in accuracy THEN the added distance will lower your score.

They don't say that. The tables show the results of a simulation changing only ONE of the variables, not both at the same time. I suspect the results would be similar, though, if you did as you suggest, but that's not what the tables show.

I would not dispute that, but that is not the same as saying distance is more important than accuracy in terms of lowering you score because IF the same 20 yards results in a 3 degree loss in accuracy THEN the added distance will not help you score.

Again, nobody is saying that such a person would be wise to take a 40% loss in accuracy for a 10% gain in distance (for a 100-golfer who hits it 7.5° and 195 yards).

Overall, generally speaking, distance is slightly more important than accuracy. Generally speaking, golfers are already reasonably accurate.

[newtogolf]

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

There's the point, without the distance it wouldn't matter if you were slightly less or more accurate because you wouldn't have the distance you need to score lower

We're not talking about a guy hitting 270y trying to hit it 300y we're talking about the majority of amateurs who can't hit their drives over 250y and are not able to compete on longer courses because they can't hit the ball far enough.   You keep creating specific scenarios to make your point and ignore the generic problem most golfers (not you) face, they can't hit the ball far enough.

Why do you think most golf manufacturers market their clubs as being longer?   They know the data shows distance helps lower scores and that most amateurs would benefit from increased distance.  When my club plays tournaments from the tournament tees the older, lower handicappers typically lose because they can't match the distance of the younger, longer players even though the older players might be more accurate.

[rb72]

They don't say that. The tables show the results of a simulation changing only ONE of the variables, not both at the same time. I suspect the results would be similar, though, if you did as you suggest, but that's not what the tables show.

Again, nobody is saying that such a person would be wise to take a 40% loss in accuracy for a 10% gain in distance (for a 100-golfer who hits it 7.5° and 195 yards).

Overall, generally speaking, distance is slightly more important than accuracy. Generally speaking, golfers are already reasonably accurate.

Okay, like I said it's about understanding.

[Aflighter]

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.

Um my experiment is not ridiculous to see how much a difference it would make to hit a shot 30 yards closer from my tee shot.I typically hit the ball 210-220 off the tee and im really accurate with my driver.I would be lying if I said I wouldn't like to figure out how to hit the ball atleast 20 yards farther.Ive tried and tried and the only thing ive found that will get me more yardage using launch monitors is to turn my shoulders more and take club back farther but with that comes loss of control and harder to get clubface back to square.Even at my short driving distance I can still make it to the green on any par 4 that isn't more than 440 or so because I can hit woods pretty accurate.I can see both sides of the argument because both are important but ive played with many guys who hit ball pretty far atleast 30-40 yards past me but a lot cant hit it straight or have a good short game to take advantage of their length.I think everyone is different and have different strengths and weaknesses.If you asked Phil Mickelson about accuracy vs distance he would tell you his length means nothing if he cant control it and this year it has cost him along with poor putting.I know most PGA pros hit it pretty far but I don't think the longest hitters won most of the tournaments this year.You can name Bubba and Rory but in Bubbas case this year he had a hot putter and also had bad tournaments too.Rory is just a star and above everyone else in his game.I saw Bubba against Tim Clark in china and yes long hitters do have an advantage on a par 5  because a lot of times they will have option to get near or on green in 1 less stroke but par4s and par3s accuracy is just as important if not more.I said before that short game game is most important over anything else because that's what actually puts ball in hole even though Iacas disagrees but maybe that's just in my situation.