Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[Aflighter]

Iacas,i understand the amount of yards longer but I don't understand the degree of accuracy loss or gained.What exactly does that mean?Think you said a gain of 20 yards at a loss of 1 degree of accuracy or something like that.How far offline would 1 degree of accuracy equate to is basically what im asking.

[iacas]

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.

The short game is not the most important thing, no, and this isn't the thread for that (there are more than a few).

There were a lot of posts made and I'm not sure you read them (in this thread). Your own situation may be different, but that doesn't mean it's for everyone or most people.

Iacas,i understand the amount of yards longer but I don't understand the degree of accuracy loss or gained.What exactly does that mean?Think you said a gain of 20 yards at a loss of 1 degree of accuracy or something like that.How far offline would 1 degree of accuracy equate to is basically what im asking.

Do the math. If your target is a certain spot (center of the fairway) and it's 30 yards wide, and your tee shot goes 240 yards, you can figure out the angles between the intended target and the target. SOHCAHTOA. sin(x) = opposite/hypotenuse, etc.

[billchao]

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.

Don't need to get defensive about it. Honestly, I don't even remember read what you proposed and I didn't keep track of who came up with what. I made a general statement about the whole situation getting ridiculous that you took to mean you for some reason. If you hit the ball longer you wouldn't need to put so much pressure on the accuracy of your woods and short game (for when you miss the greens) because it's easier to be accurate with shorter and higher lofted clubs. That only serves to demonstrate what others have said, that you focus on accuracy because your distance has peaked. You are at a disadvantage in length, so you have to make up for it by being a lot more accurate. Your personal situation and observations, while true to you, do not reflect what's generally true for most golfers. That's what this issue seems to boil down to, that people can't seem to accept what is true for themselves isn't necessarily true for all golf? It's ok if you need to be more accurate to score better (I'm also in this category), but the data has shown that distance is more important. Distance and accuracy are both needed in golf, but distance trumps accuracy.

[Aflighter]

Don't need to get defensive about it. Honestly, I don't even remember read what you proposed and I didn't keep track of who came up with what. I made a general statement about the whole situation getting ridiculous that you took to mean you for some reason.

If you hit the ball longer you wouldn't need to put so much pressure on the accuracy of your woods and short game (for when you miss the greens) because it's easier to be accurate with shorter and higher lofted clubs. That only serves to demonstrate what others have said, that you focus on accuracy because your distance has peaked. You are at a disadvantage in length, so you have to make up for it by being a lot more accurate. Your personal situation and observations, while true to you, do not reflect what's generally true for most golfers.

That's what this issue seems to boil down to, that people can't seem to accept what is true for themselves isn't necessarily true for all golf? It's ok if you need to be more accurate to score better (I'm also in this category), but the data has shown that distance is more important. Distance and accuracy are both needed in golf, but distance trumps accuracy.

Yeah I know in my situation accuracy and short game are the keys for my game on courses no longer than 6500 yards or so.I guess my feelings are that I play over 20 amateur tour events each year and in my flight which are handicaps around 8-10 pretty much 80% of the players can hit it 240-260 but their 2nd shots are not as good even though they may only have 100-140 left.Distance to them isn't their issue keeping them from getting better but their approach shots and short game.

[Phil McGleno]

When they hit more GIR they wont be in your bracket anymore-Youre the one playing 'up' a level with your short tee shots.[quote name="Aflighter" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/450#post_1080168"]Yeah I know in my situation accuracy and short game are the keys for my game on courses no longer than 6500 yards or so.I guess my feelings are that I play over 20 amateur tour events each year and in my flight which are handicaps around 8-10 pretty much 80% of the players can hit it 240-260 but their 2nd shots are not as good even though they may only have 100-140 left.Distance to them isn't their issue keeping them from getting better but their approach shots and short game. [/quote]

[Crim]

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.

Again, consider this picture:

If I told you that this was an overhead view of part of a par four, and A and B represent two balls after the tee shot, and the bullseye in the middle was the hole, which ball is more accurate given the tee box is directly down from the bullseye? Clearly A is more accurate. Even though it's slightly right of a direct line from the tee box, the added distance is leaving a shorter shot to the hole. Unless the ball is in an unplayable or horrible position, player A will likely average a lower score than player B.

If the tee box was to the right, then we'd still agree that ball A was more accurate… but B is the farther one. It's just so inaccurate that its inaccuracy couldn't be overcome by the distance. Fortunately for longer hitters, this is rare, as we know that, generally speaking, longer hitters are just as if not more accurate as their shorter-hitting brethren when we measure in degrees of deviation.

Why can't we measure fairways hit? Because it's a stupid stat. If Bubba Watson wants to hit as many fairways (or more) as David Toms, he could just hit a driving iron off the tee. He'd probably hit it just as far as David and more accurately than David Toms hits his driver. This is one of many ways were distance HELPS you be more accurate. Bubba has the distance he needs when he needs it, and when he doesn't because the design of the hole is too penal, he only needs a bogey to win, or whatever… he can gear back and hit an even more accurate club than the shorter hitter.

Players who hit the ball farther are not incredibly less accurate. A lot of people have assumed that going for distance automatically means you're going to be crazy wild off the tee. Nobody is saying distance is THAT important that you have to or should sacrifice any semblance of accuracy.

Golfers are, generally speaking, already a heck of a lot more accurate than people credit them for. PGA Tour players are about 3.5°, while guys shooting 100 are about 7°. What helps shorter hitters hit more fairways? The fact that they're short! A ball that goes 220 yards and stops in the right edge of the fairway is recorded as "fairway hit" while a ball that goes 280 but is less angled and creeps into the right rough is marked as "fairway missed." It's a dumb stat.

The green is the fairway. Off the edge is some light rough, the first cut.

Which of those drives was more accurate? The answer depends on whether you consider accuracy by fairways hit or by angles or by how close it's advanced you toward the target.

In that sense, then, golf becomes a multi-dimensional problem. It's still only about distance and accuracy, but also about blending the two appropriately (and of course being able to perform it - there's a limit to how far any one person will hit the ball and how accurately they can do so, too).

Wild hitters are at a disadvantage. But so are short hitters.

Long hitters have an advantage. But so do accurate players.

I think it's completely pointless to make up scenarios, hypothetical situations, etc. This is particularly true when people make up such far-fetched examples that when you gain 25 yards you suddenly can't keep your golf ball on the face of the planet. This is particularly true given the chart Matt (@saevel25) displayed: golfers are not very much more accurate with their 3W as they are with their driver. Bubba Watson misses TWO more fairways per round (out of 14), but averages 40 yards farther on ALL 14 of those tee shots. If I told you that I'd give you 40 yards but you had to throw your ball from the fairway to the rough two more times per round, you'd be silly not to take that deal unless your course literally has OB a few yards off nearly every fairway (both sides). So, rather than saying "I'll give you 25 yards but you will hit three more balls OB" it's more likely to be "I'll give you 25 more yards 14 times per round, but you have to hit one or two more balls from the rough."

An earlier hypothetical had some guy shooting 90 with 15° of "accuracy." I don't think that the poster realizes how huge 15° is. The average guy who shoots 100 is over twice as accurate: 7°.

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%

Now, then, Mark Broadie's other simulation. Having actual data from thousands of rounds of golf from thousands of golfers, Mark simulated a statistically significant number of rounds (maybe 1000, maybe 10,000, maybe a million, I don't know) adding 20 yards to the tee shots (JUST the tee shots) of players who shot 100, 90, 80, and played on the PGA Tour. He then did the same simulation giving the players 1° more accuracy off the tee.

Despite the fact that 1° of accuracy is anywhere from 1.4x to 4.1x larger in terms of percentage improvement, not once did it result in lower scores or more strokes saved than 20 yards of distance.

Category

Driving Distance

Strokes Gained

Driving Accuracy

Strokes Gained

100 Golfer

195 -> 215 (10%)

2.3

7° -> 6° (14%)

1.0

90 Golfer

225 -> 245 (9%)

1.6

6.5°-> 5.5° (15%)

0.9

80 Golfer

245 -> 265 (8%)

1.3

6° -> 5° (17%)

0.9

PGA Tour

295 -> 315 (7%)

0.8

3.5° -> 2.5° (29%)

0.8

For a 10% gain in driving distance (again, JUST with the driver), the guy who shoots 100 will shoot 2.3 strokes better. For a 14% gain in accuracy, he'll shoot only 1.0 better - 1.3 strokes less for 40% more improvement in their driving accuracy. And as players get better, the gap in strokes closes… but the percentage improvement in the accuracy category starts to skyrocket: a PGA Tour player gains 0.8 strokes either way, but you're comparing a 7% improvement in distance to a 29% improvement in accuracy.

And again, that's just with 14 drives per round. Add the increased distance (or accuracy) to the other clubs and the gap widens.

Making up 15° ranges, or a golfer who gains 20 yards but hits three extra balls OB during a round, is simply another way to kid yourselves into believing what you think to be true.

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

We know that.

There you go. If you're an exception - if you hit the ball 220 yards but are only within about 10° of hitting your target, you need to work on your accuracy. If you're hitting the ball to about 5° and are hitting the ball as far as you can, well, again, work on your accuracy - you have no choice. If you're hitting the ball to within 3.5° and your distance is tapped out - well, you're a real freak of nature, because you're either on the PGA Tour or you've reached the limits - your golf swing is basically as good as it's ever going to get.

But those guys are just that - exceptions. They are not as common as many in this thread want to suggest. The bubbles in the graph above have the most data points near the trend lines and toward the middle of the ovals. Though you can find a 100 golfer who is longer and more accurate than an 80 golfer, such a situation is incredibly rare. Generally speaking, a relatively smaller gain in distance yields a larger advantage than relatively larger increases in accuracy. (And again, that's just with the tee shots - the situation has a ripple effect and the gap only widens if the increased distance or accuracy are granted to other clubs as well.)

You can't refute that by saying "Yeah, but at my course…" or "yeah, but the guys I play with…". These stats were compiled with thousands of rounds, and done so without the bias of memory.

That is not to say that there aren't courses where being accurate matters. But again, longer hitters can play those courses too, because odds are they're just as accurate at any given distance because they need to hit less club. Never mind that they're also likely a bit more accurate, even if (per the fairway graphic above) it isn't reflected in fairways hit stats.

Seriously, look at the LPGA Tour to see what an advantage distance often provides. Michelle Wie or Lexi Thompson can hit 9I from the rough closer to the hole than some shorter hitter can typically hit a 5-hybrid from the left half of the fairway. Do the shorter, more accurate players win sometimes? Yes. But generally speaking, they win less often and win less money than the longer hitters. That's true at every level of the game. It's not a big margin, but it's there, and it favors distance.

GIR

There is a section in LSW about GIR. It's the chapter called "Golf's Important Royalty." It talks about how, of golf's traditional stats, GIR has the highest correlation to scoring. Players who hit more greens score better. What's more, the R-value for this stat is very good at every level of the game. No other stat correlates as strong to scoring as GIR.

Let's create a general hole that's somewhat representative of a typical golf hole. It's 400 yards long. The fairway is 40 yards wide. To the right is OB, and to the left is 20 yards of rough (not U.S. Open rough). Beyond that is trees or somesuch.

For the ball to end up in each of these situations, assuming the player is aiming at the middle of the zone he wishes to hit:

Fairway

Fairway/Rough

Yards Left

Club

Short Hitter (225)

+/- 5.1°

+/- 7.6°

175

4I

Average (250)

+/- 4.6°

+/- 6.8°

150

7I

Long Hitter (275)

+/- 4.2°

+/- 6.2°

125

GW

SOHCAHTOA. I think I used TOA. If you wanted to use SOH, the numbers may vary in the tenths place in a few spots, likely on the 225 guy, but that's about it.

Remember that the +/- ranges are simply that - ranges. A ball hit anywhere in that range is in the condition listed (fairway, fairway/rough).

Notice a couple of things:

The long hitter can actually be less accurate by over one degree than the short hitter because he can hit a gap wedge from the fairway or rough in order to hit the green, and he'll do that a HECK of a lot more often than the short hitter will hit the green from the fairway from 175, because there's almost no chance the short hitter is hitting the green from the rough.

The long hitter actually gets to be less accurate because his length (i.e. his skill) helps him make up for it. He's going to average lower scores than the short hitter even if you let the short hitter put the ball in the fairway. Heck, even if you let the short hitter hit the ball from 150 yards out in the fairway with his 6I every time, the long hitter is going to beat him even if he's hitting out of the ROUGH 1/3 of the time (20 yards of rough, 40 yards of fairway).

The 275 hitter could hit a hybrid 225 if he came to a hole with OB on both sides. So long as he can be 0.9° more accurate with his hybrid as he is with his driver, he's just as accurate as the short hitter. And then he gets to hit a shorter club to the green!

Some other things:

Nobody is saying nor will ever say that accuracy doesn't matter at all. Accuracy matters a lot - it is one of only two variables to golf, those being distance AND accuracy.

Distance, generally, is slightly more important than accuracy. The gap is not huge at all (nobody is saying distance matters significantly more than accuracy), but remember two things:

The gap is wider the higher the average score: distance matters a bit less to a PGA Tour player (they're all pretty long), while distance matters a good bit more to the guys shooting 90 (it gives them shorter clubs which increase their chances of hitting or getting near the GIR).

Distance improvements are tyically smaller improvements by percentage than the accuracy improvements (20 yards is a 10% improvement to a guy who hits it 200 yards versus 1° being 14° improvement to a guy who hits it 7° offline). On the PGA Tour, 20% (0.8 strokes) is 7% improvement, while the same 0.8 strokes require 29% improvement in accuracy.

The Broadie charts were done just by simulating improvement on only 14 shots - tee shots with the driver. If you gain 8% in distance on all of your clubs, you gain another club on your irons too. So… 20 yards off the tee + 1 club is roughly three clubs less into every green. On a hole where you'd hit Driver, 5I you can now hit Driver, 8I. Even if you don't improve your actual accuracy, the accuracy stat that matters most (GIR) will improve. It takes a LOT of accuracy to overcome hitting three clubs less into EVERY green (and a club or two less on par threes, and reaching more par fives in two).

Unlike the simulations Broadie did, golfers don't improve these things in isolation. As the trend line indicates in the graph with the bubbles, as overall golfer SKILL improves, both distance AND accuracy tend to improve. Distance contributes a little more to that than accuracy, but they both come along together as general golfer SKILL improves.

Nobody is suggesting you swing out of your shoes to get more distance. 1° of LOST accuracy may not hurt you (if you gain 20 yards, it's break even all the way to PGA Tour level golf), but if you're losing 2° or 3° or more in accuracy those losses start to be un-recoverable unless you are gaining 40+ yards.

Courses in the UK are not that different than courses in the U.S. I grew up playing a course where the fairways averaged 23 yards in width (and the treelines 24 yards), and Whispering Woods where I play now puts a pretty good emphasis on accuracy too. I've played UK courses, and the Old Course is a pretty extreme example, but the fairways are a hundred yards wide. The U.S. has parkland golf courses. Yes, the gorse and heather and stuff can be penal… but so too are the trees on a parkland course. Anyway, the courses are not significantly different.

Distance IS a form of accuracy. Not only do you get to hit shorter clubs (or hit a 3W 240 while your friend hits driver 240 - odds are you'll be a bit more accurate), but see the bullseye example I gave earlier: distance gets you CLOSER TO THE HOLE. That is a form of accuracy too.

Some of you are simply not being realistic. The average golfer is not better off hitting from 175 all day than he is from 145 even if two more of those extra shots from 145 are out of the rough.

When Dave and I are asked "how good someone can get" one of the first things we assess is their natural speed, or future ability to generate speed. It speaks to their distance potential. Sure, you can be scratch if you swing the driver 95 MPH… but it's far less likely than if you swing it 115.

Nobody is saying to hit driver everywhere, swing out of your shoes, or always go for distance. Accuracy is important too; just not quite as important as distance. Consider the baseline in the chart above, and whether you're missing out more on accuracy or distance, and ask yourself too what you're capable of: a 55-year old might not ever improve his distance again, but can still work to gain accuracy. A beginner will improve BOTH rapidly as his contact improves. Better players are generally hitting the ball as far as they can, and thus work to gain accuracy. The mid-level players we work with gain both, but distance gains again account for a bit more of their handicap improvements than their accuracy gains. Mis-hitting shots costs you a lot of distance…

I just thought of this… consider golf course ratings (sorry UK people). The course rating and slope combine to help sort out what a golfer of a given handicap will shoot half the time. The single biggest factor in determining the rating and slope? Course length. Good luck creating a 6000 yard golf course that places such a premium on accuracy it earns a 73.4 rating with a 142 slope.

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.

This post was amazing and should have completely ended the thread. Nothing left to be said.

[turtleback]

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.

Says the guy making hypotheticals where an 18 gains 30 yards?  You analysis on your own scenario was also tilted in that what is REALLY unlikely is that someone could improve their swing and ball striking enough to gain 30 yards without their accuracy also improving.  Better swing = more distance + more accuracy.

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.

It still wouldn't meet your criticism because it would still be an "on average" figure.  And it would also suggest a level of precision which is simply not justified by the nature of the data and the analysis.

A general comment:  there seems to be a real lack of understanding in this thread about the difference between descriptive statistics (describing what IS) and prescriptive statistics (implying what you should DO).

[DrvFrShow]

Exactly.... I duffed a drive that went about 45 yds and it onto the fairway. It counts as a FIR. I count it as a duffed drive. My opponent hit a 210 yd drive into the first cut - this counts as a miss. I'd trade shots any day. This actually happened. I'm left scrambling from my second shot.

I picked these players. I have the LPGA page bookmarked.

Stacy Lewis (258.9 FIR 78.6% GIR 75.8%)      TT 64% Wins 3

Michelle Wie (257.5 FIR 66.9% GIR 76.8%)     TT 62% Wins 3

Lydia Ko (249.6 FIR 79.2% GIR 74.1%)           TT 58% Wins 3

Lexi Thompson (270 FIR 60.2% GIR 73.4%)     TT 32% Wins 1

Julietta Granada (236.4 FIR 82.6% GIR 68.7%) TT 29% Wins 0

Mo Martin (234.4 FIR 86% GIR 67.5%)             TT 8% Wins 1

What I see in the limited sample is there is a correlation between the ability to get a GIR and driving distance, and it's not statistically insignificant. Lexi despite her 60% FIR is still among the top players in GIRs. At that level of play missing two greens out of 100 can mean the difference between a Top Ten and not. Michelle Wie's 66.9% FIR doesn't seem to hurt her that much - to quote her "I'm pretty good hitting out of the woods." Stacy Lewis just burned up the circuit this year on the putting green in addition to the rest of her game. I would call a 7 yd drive difference almost insignificant, and add Ko's accuracy on top of that, and you see her performance. Ko is scary. The shorter drivers have a more difficult time getting a GIR - they're missing 6 holes out of 100, and these are very accurate players.

Now put these stats with us far less accurate players, and you have the picture. Just take a look at the stats on the LPGA page. They back up the stats that @iacas posted.

Long @iacas post made short.

* you are better off hitting a driver 240 into the first cut than 200 into the middle of the fairway.

* being able to hit a longer drive extends the range of every club in your bag.

* a 7 iron is more accurate than a 4H. A 9 iron is more accurate than a 7 iron regardless of the distance from which you are hitting it.

Someone able to hit a forged 8 iron from 155 yds is going to be more accurate with it than me hitting a cavity back 6 iron from that distance. That is just a fact. They are making better contact with the ball, and they have better neuro-muscle memory with their swing.

[rb72]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

It still wouldn't meet your criticism because it would still be an "on average" figure.  And it would also suggest a level of precision which is simply not justified by the nature of the data and the analysis.

A general comment:  there seems to be a real lack of understanding in this thread about the difference between descriptive statistics (describing what IS) and prescriptive statistics (implying what you should DO).

I'm not sure what you mean by either statement. I have no problem with on average figures and I didn't mean for that particular ratio to be anything real world just an example of a statement that has meaning. Even if you say "for the slight majority of golfers distance is more important than accuracy" it has vastly more meaning than "in golf distance is more important than accuracy.

This graph was presented earlier. Somewhere the creator of the graph says that the golfers above the baseline need to work on accuracy and those below it need to work on distance. This actually makes my point that a blanket statement that "distance is more important than accuracy" can not be made without qualifiers. This illustrates that there is at least a significant numer of golfer for which accuracy is more important than distance.

All of the other mathematical evidence presented seems to assume that a 20 yard increase in distance equates to a 2 or 1 degree loss in accuracy and given those figures, a simulation results in lower scores for more distance. If there were surveys done to show that those ratios are somewhat accurate in a real world situation then the data is certainly valid but I've seen no such surveys presented here and those ratios appear to be completely arbitrary.

Picture (Click to hide)

[Lihu]

[QUOTE] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE name="turtleback" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/450#post_1080282"]   It still wouldn't meet your criticism because it would still be an "on average" figure.  And it would also suggest a level of precision which is simply not justified by the nature of the data and the analysis. A general comment:  there seems to be a real lack of understanding in this thread about the difference between descriptive statistics (describing what IS) and prescriptive statistics (implying what you should DO). [/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you mean by either statement. I have no problem with on average figures and I didn't mean for that particular ratio to be anything real world just an example of a statement that has meaning. Even if you say "for the slight majority of golfers distance is more important than accuracy" it has vastly more meaning than "in golf distance is more important than accuracy. This graph was presented earlier. Somewhere the creator of the graph says that the golfers above the baseline need to work on accuracy and those below it need to work on distance. This actually makes my point that a blanket statement that "distance is more important than accuracy" can not be made without qualifiers. This illustrates that there is at least a significant numer of golfer for which accuracy is more important than distance. All of the other mathematical evidence presented seems to assume that a 20 yard increase in distance equates to a 2 or 1 degree loss in accuracy and given those figures, a simulation results in lower scores for more distance. If there were surveys done to show that those ratios are somewhat accurate in a real world situation then the data is certainly valid but I've seen no such surveys presented here and those ratios appear to be completely arbitrary. [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/432#] Picture (Click to hide)[/URL] [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/109686/] [/URL]

Have you considered the possibility that by increasing your distance could also increase your accuracy?

[rb72]

Have you considered the possibility that by increasing your distance could also increase your accuracy?

I thought we established that we're not talking about this case. Improving both makes it impossible to answer the question "which is more important?" The question implies that there is a loss of accuracy associated with a gain in distance. My position has always been that the key factor in answering that is the ratio of yards gained to accuracy lost. The evidence presented (by Iacas) to show that distance is, in fact, more important ignores this key factor by assuming a constant ratio of 20 yards gained to 1 degree lost. My contention is that there is no meaningful data drawn if that assumption is made.

If there were data showing that a typical golfer would lose 1-2 degrees of accuracy for every twenty yards gained then the tables provided would be meaningful and the statement would be true (on average). But I've seen no such data, just an assumption.

[iacas]

I'm adding this to the top so that you see it.

The evidence presented (by Iacas) to show that distance is, in fact, more important ignores this key factor by assuming a constant ratio of 20 yards gained to 1 degree lost.

The data does no such thing. You are reading the data incorrectly. It does not link 1° with 20 yards.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by either statement.

Then perhaps you should ask before continuing on with your perspective?

I have no problem with on average figures and I didn't mean for that particular ratio to be anything real world just an example of a statement that has meaning. Even if you say "for the slight majority of golfers distance is more important than accuracy" it has vastly more meaning than "in golf distance is more important than accuracy.

Those numbers are a more fine-grained or detailed evidence that support the more general "distance is slightly more important" phrase.

Also, you can't create a ratio because, again, the ratio of distance to degrees improvement changes, and the ratio of strokes saved changes too. What's always true, per that chart is that an equal percentage improvement in distance yields more strokes saved than an equal percentage improvement in accuracy (within reason - let's spare stories of a guy adding 160 yards to his tee shots or losing 140 or something).

This graph was presented earlier. Somewhere the creator of the graph says that the golfers above the baseline need to work on accuracy and those below it need to work on distance.

You still don't know where the individual data points in the bubbles, and you didn't understand something up above about this chart or one of the others, so… I don't put a lot of faith in your ability to read this chart very well.

This actually makes my point that a blanket statement that "distance is more important than accuracy" can not be made without qualifiers. This illustrates that there is at least a significant numer of golfer for which accuracy is more important than distance.

No it doesn't. For two reasons:

1. You could have these graphs be perfectly accurate, and still have more people below the trend line than above it. You'd simply need the people above the line to be FARTHER from the line, thus "pulling" it in that direction more.
2. You continue to miss out on the fact that, in general, improving your distance yields higher returns. If you could gain 20 yards with a certain amount of effort, or gain 1° of accuracy with the same amount of effort… and one yields 2.7 strokes saved on average while the other yields 1.1, why on earth would you go for accuracy?

All of the other mathematical evidence presented seems to assume that a 20 yard increase in distance equates to a 2 or 1 degree loss in accuracy and given those figures

You don't seem to be reading the charts properly. The charts do not tie together distance gains with accuracy lost/gained.

If there were surveys done to show that those ratios are somewhat accurate in a real world situation then the data is certainly valid but I've seen no such surveys presented here and those ratios appear to be completely arbitrary.

Surveys don't need to be done. You are not understanding the data as it is presented.

They probably were arbitrarily chosen. Or maybe they were chosen because, at the PGA Tour level (where 20 yards is 7% and 1° is 29%), they are both whole numbers (1 and 20) and equal in their effectiveness at saving strokes.

Then these numbers were applied to the simulations for other golfers. If in a simulated round a golfer hits it to 160 yards in the rough, the simulation moves his ball 20 yards farther on that line and asks what his score will be, on average, from there. The simulation then puts his ball back in the original position, moves it 1° closer to the center of the fairway, and asks what the average score is from there for the 100-shooter, 90-shooter, or whatever.

They aren't linked together. 20 yards does not mean 1 degree. You've seemingly read the charts wrong this whole time. Buy the book or something; it's getting tiresome to have to explain this stuff

The question implies that there is a loss of accuracy associated with a gain in distance.

I completely disagree that the question implies that. I have not assumed that.

My position has always been that the key factor in answering that is the ratio of yards gained to accuracy lost.

Many golfers improve their accuracy as they improve their distance. Your (recent) hunt for a ratio is not relevant. The ratio is vastly different from golfer to golfer, and those charts are not linked: they are not tying 1° to 20 yards.

The evidence presented (by Iacas) to show that distance is, in fact, more important ignores this key factor by assuming a constant ratio of 20 yards gained to 1 degree lost.

The data does no such thing. You are reading the data incorrectly. It does not link 1° with 20 yards.

Seriously, enough.

---

What do the bubble charts show us? That amateurs are already reasonably accurate. The worst are 7.5° while PGA Tour (i.e. just about the ceiling of human potential given that we have to hit the ball farther than a few feet) is 3.5°). What they suck at is hitting the ball far.

Amateur golfers will, in general, improve a bit more by increasing how far they hit the ball than by increasing how accurately they hit the ball.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/450#post_1080289"] Have you considered the possibility that by increasing your distance could also increase your accuracy?[/QUOTE] I thought we established that we're not talking about this case. Improving both makes it impossible to answer the question "which is more important?" The question implies that there is a loss of accuracy associated with a gain in distance. My position has always been that the key factor in answering that is the ratio of yards gained to accuracy lost. The evidence presented (by Iacas) to show that distance is, in fact, more important ignores this key factor by assuming a constant ratio of 20 yards gained to 1 degree lost. My contention is that there is no meaningful data drawn if that assumption is made. If there were data showing that a typical golfer would lose 1-2 degrees of accuracy for every twenty yards gained then the tables provided would be meaningful and the statement would be true (on average). But I've seen no such data, just an assumption.

My only issue is you're presenting a hypothetical situation that does not seem to exist at least in my experience. I don't know a single person who added yards to their drives without increased accuracy. I know people who hit long and wild, but they did not develop more distance. All the people who developed more distance also developed more accuracy. This is because they improved their mechanics to increase their distance which also improves their accuracy at the same time.

[iacas]

My only issue is you're presenting a hypothetical situation that does not seem to exist at least in my experience. I don't know a single person who added yards to their drives without increased accuracy.

I know people who hit long and wild, but they did not develop more distance. All the people who developed more distance also developed more accuracy. This is because they improved their mechanics to increase their distance which also improves their accuracy at the same time.

@Lihu , I'm sure there are plenty of people who became wilder searching for more distance. You could say they were already at their limit perhaps, and thus swinging wildly, or they were going about it incorrectly (poor instruction or ideas), but I'ms sure they're out there.

Anecdotal/experiential "evidence" isn't really "evidence" regardless of which side of the argument it supports. :)

[parallax]

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%

Now, then, Mark Broadie's other simulation. Having actual data from thousands of rounds of golf from thousands of golfers, Mark simulated a statistically significant number of rounds (maybe 1000, maybe 10,000, maybe a million, I don't know) adding 20 yards to the tee shots (JUST the tee shots) of players who shot 100, 90, 80, and played on the PGA Tour. He then did the same simulation giving the players 1° more accuracy off the tee.

Despite the fact that 1° of accuracy is anywhere from 1.4x to 4.1x larger in terms of percentage improvement, not once did it result in lower scores or more strokes saved than 20 yards of distance.

Category

Driving Distance

Strokes Gained

Driving Accuracy

Strokes Gained

100 Golfer

195 -> 215 (10%)

2.3

7° -> 6° (14%)

1.0

90 Golfer

225 -> 245 (9%)

1.6

6.5°-> 5.5° (15%)

0.9

80 Golfer

245 -> 265 (8%)

1.3

6° -> 5° (17%)

0.9

PGA Tour

295 -> 315 (7%)

0.8

3.5° -> 2.5° (29%)

0.8

For a 10% gain in driving distance (again, JUST with the driver), the guy who shoots 100 will shoot 2.3 strokes better. For a 14% gain in accuracy, he'll shoot only 1.0 better - 1.3 strokes less for 40% more improvement in their driving accuracy. And as players get better, the gap in strokes closes… but the percentage improvement in the accuracy category starts to skyrocket: a PGA Tour player gains 0.8 strokes either way, but you're comparing a 7% improvement in distance to a 29% improvement in accuracy.

Good post, except for the application of the ecological fallacy ;-)

-And-

Comparing percentage gain of distance in yards and percentage gain in accuracy in degrees is poor (IMHO). Someone who who drives the ball 195 yards and has a 7* miss is missing their target by approx. 24 yards. With a 1* improvement to 6*, the target is missed by approx. 20 yards. By this metric it is a (4 yards) 2% improvement (when measured against total distance). Similarly someone who drives it 295 and misses by 3.5* misses their target by about 18 yards, and with a 1* improvement to 2.5* they miss by about 13 yards, an improvement of (5 yards) about 1.5%.

For a 295 yard driver a 20 yard miss is approximately 4*, for a 195 yard driver a 20 yard miss is approximately 6*.

So.... IMHO, in order to make a fair comparison (of strokes gained) you would need to run the simulation with the 195yard driver making a 6* improvement (approx. 20 yards), and the 295 driver making a 4* improvement (approx. 20 yards).

I

[iacas]

Good post, except for the application of the ecological fallacy ;-)

Nobody's doing that. You keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true.

Comparing percentage gain of distance in yards and percentage gain in accuracy in degrees is poor (IMHO). Someone who who drives the ball 195 yards and has a 7* miss is missing their target by approx. 24 yards. With a 1* improvement to 6*, the target is missed by approx. 20 yards. By this metric it is a (4 yards) 2% improvement (when measured against total distance).

That seems to be a particularly lousy way to measure lateral accuracy, but feel free to take it up with the Ph.D. who wrote it.

[parallax]

Nobody's doing that. You keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true.

Here (applying group statistics to an individual example):

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

That seems to be a particularly lousy way to measure lateral accuracy, but feel free to take it up with the Ph.D. who wrote it.

You think it is lousy to compare distance to distance, rather than distance to angles?

[iacas]

Here (applying group statistics to an individual example)

That's not an individual; it's an average (i.e. a generalization).

You think it is lousy to compare distance to distance, rather than distance to angles?

Yeah, the way you've done it.

If you want to compare distances, compare the distance left/right of the target, not the distance from the origin to the final resting spot.

24 to 20 means you take change (4) over original (24) and you get… 17%. Turns out those numbers are rounded, though, and are really…

195 * sin(7) = 23.76

195 * sin(6) = 20.38

3.38/23.76 = 14% = 1/7.

495 * sin(7) = 60.33

495 * sin(6) = 51.74

8.59/60.33 = 14% = 1/7.