Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[parallax]

The bottom line is that the strokes gained comparison of distance and accuracy makes a flawed comparison. Distance percentage improvement vs. angle percentage improvement are comparing apples to oranges.

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

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.

You should read my whole post.

The accurate comparison should not compare an arbitrary percentage improvement, that is flawed analysis.

The most accurate comparison would be a 20 yard gain to a 20 yard accuracy improvement. For a 295 yard driver, it is about 3.89* (0.01 accuracy for ya!) improvement, and for a 195 yard driver, it is about a 5.89* improvement.

[iacas]

The bottom line is that the strokes gained comparison of distance and accuracy makes a flawed comparison. Distance percentage improvement vs. angle percentage improvement are comparing apples to oranges.

Nope.

You should read my whole post.

I did. Just because you keep repeating things does not make them right.

The most accurate comparison would be a 20 yard gain to a 20 yard accuracy improvement. For a 295 yard driver, it is about 3.89* (0.01 accuracy for ya!) improvement, and for a 195 yard driver, it is about a 5.89* improvement.

That's really stupid.

---

Email Mark Broadie. I'm sure he won't call that idea stupid flat out, but I'd bet if he was honest he'd admit to thinking it.

Peace out.

[parallax]

Let me put it another way.... You think comparing a 3.5 to 5 yard accuracy improvement to a 20 yard distance increase is smart and comparing a 20 yard accuracy improvement to a 20 yard distance increase is stupid?

[Golfingdad]

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

You keep saying this, which I don't mind because you actually forced me to look it up and now I've learned something new, however, you don't really seem to understand it.  It's been repeated several times over that these are generalizations.  Nobody is attempting to apply this information to any one particular person, as far as I've read so far.  The example you've posted ISN'T "applying group statistics to an individual example," it's simply explaining to you what the findings of the group statistics are.  ON AVERAGE, a 100's shooter will drop 2.3 strokes by gaining 10% in distance and they'll only gain 1.0 strokes by gaining 14% in accuracy.

For it to be an ecological fallacy, it would have to claim that EVERY 100's shooter will see those gains OR it would have to arbitrarily say "that particular 100's guy right there will see those gains, I guarantee it."  It does neither.  It explains the findings of the study.  Period.

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%.

Percentage gains is the closest to "apples to apples" as you can really get when you're comparing distance and accuracy ... unless you're talking about a person who's dispersion is so wild that its the same as his length.  (And that's absurd)

Also, you can't measure the percentage gained of your x value by using the y value as your numerator.  That makes no sense.  If you turned it around the other way (just as ridiculously "valid") then you could say nonsense like:

"By this metric, a 20 yard improvement in distance of a guy whose dispersion is typically 10 yards is an improvement of 200%."

[iacas]

Let me put it another way.... You think comparing a 3.5 to 5 yard accuracy improvement to a 20 yard distance increase is smart and comparing a 20 yard accuracy improvement to a 20 yard distance increase is stupid?

Yep.

Let's say I hit my 6-iron 181 yards. Let's say I miss by 10 yards.

Let's say I improve my accuracy, and I now miss by 5 yards. Using your math, I'd either have to compare that to hitting my 6-iron 186 yards (it's not gonna change much) OR hitting it 362 yards (or 271.5 depending on which direction you want to go on the 50% or 200% improvement).

And improving my accuracy 50% is a heck of a lot more difficult than improving my distance 50%.

[parallax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

You keep saying this, which I don't mind because you actually forced me to look it up and now I've learned something new, however, you don't really seem to understand it.  It's been repeated several times over that these are generalizations.  Nobody is attempting to apply this information to any one particular person, as far as I've read so far.  The example you've posted ISN'T "applying group statistics to an individual example," it's simply explaining to you what the findings of the group statistics are.  ON AVERAGE, a 100's shooter will drop 2.3 strokes by gaining 10% in distance and they'll only gain 1.0 strokes by gaining 14% in accuracy.

For it to be an ecological fallacy, it would have to claim that EVERY 100's shooter will see those gains OR it would have to arbitrarily say "that particular 100's guy right there will see those gains, I guarantee it."  It does neither.  It explains the findings of the study.  Period.

In the section I quoted as the example of the fallacy he is clearly talking about an individual ("the guy", even though it is a theoretical individual) and their theoretical gains. I know what he is trying to say, but it is important when speaking about statistics not to fall into this trap of statistical analysis (and it isn't an easy thing to do).

For it to be an ecological fallacy you certainly do not have to claim that EVERY 100's shooter will see those gains, only one.

Quote:

Percentage gains is the closest to "apples to apples" as you can really get when you're comparing distance and accuracy ... unless you're talking about a person who's dispersion is so wild that its the same as his length.  (And that's absurd)

Also, you can't measure the percentage gained of your x value by using the y value as your numerator.  That makes no sense.  If you turned it around the other way (just as ridiculously "valid") then you could say nonsense like:

"By this metric, a 20 yard improvement in distance of a guy whose dispersion is typically 10 yards is an improvement of 200%."

The chart provided isn't comparing percentage gains in distance or even static gains in distance, it is comparing static distance increases (and their percentages, which don't match) to arbitrary gains in degrees (and their arbitrary percentages, which don't match)

Comparing static distances would be better, and comparing distance percentages would also be better. But comparing static distances to static degrees, and using their percentage changes in your analysis is severely flawed.

If you want to compare a 10% increase in distance, you should use that same distance to compare the increase in accuracy, otherwise it is meaningless analysis.

As for your quote.... I would never say or endorse such a silly statement.

[parallax]

Yep.

Let's say I hit my 6-iron 181 yards. Let's say I miss by 10 yards.

Let's say I improve my accuracy, and I now miss by 5 yards. Using your math, I'd either have to compare that to hitting my 6-iron 186 yards (it's not gonna change much) OR hitting it 362 yards (or 271.5 depending on which direction you want to go on the 50% or 200% improvement).

And improving my accuracy 50% is a heck of a lot more difficult than improving my distance 50%.

You are misunderstanding my critique. The part of my critique you are trying to apply was a reductio ad absurdum, showing how the application of percentages was flawed.

To use your example, if you miss by 10 yards at 181 and improve by 5 you would compare that to a 5 yard increase in distance and compare how your strokes gained improved in each scenario.

[iacas]

In the section I quoted as the example of the fallacy he is clearly talking about an individual ("the guy", even though it is a theoretical individual) and their theoretical gains. I know what he is trying to say, but it is important when speaking about statistics not to fall into this trap of statistical analysis (and it isn't an easy thing to do).

For it to be an ecological fallacy you certainly do not have to claim that EVERY 100's shooter will see those gains, only one.

It isn't talking about one guy.

The chart provided isn't comparing percentage gains in distance or even static gains in distance, it is comparing static distance increases (and their percentages, which don't match) to arbitrary gains in degrees (and their arbitrary percentages, which don't match)

I love it when people use the word "arbitrary" as if that renders the findings irrelevant. The 20 yards is "arbitrary" too. I addressed this above.

Comparing static distances would be better, and comparing distance percentages would also be better.

No it wouldn't.

They operate on different scales.

You are misunderstanding my critique. The part of my critique you are trying to apply was a reductio ad absurdum, showing how the application of percentages was flawed.

To use your example, if you miss by 10 yards at 181 and improve by 5 you would compare that to a 5 yard increase in distance and compare how your strokes gained improved in each scenario.

I'm not misunderstanding.

I'm telling you that's an incredibly stupid way to look at two very different things like distance and accuracy. They have vastly different scales.

So let's adjust the scales.

Since a golfer can't ever reasonably achieve 0° of accuracy or 600 yards of driving distance, let's set the scale from "sucky" to "great" - 100s golfers to PGA Tour players.

That means the scale is 3.5° to 7.5° and 195 yards to 305 yards.

Now we can see that a 20-yard improvement from 195 to 215 is 18%. A 1 degree improvement from 7 to 6 is a 25% improvement. Using the chart above, an 18% improvement in driving distance betters the average score of a 100-golfer (by more than 2x) a 25% improvement in accuracy.

[billchao]

You are misunderstanding my critique. The part of my critique you are trying to apply was a reductio ad absurdum, showing how the application of percentages was flawed. To use your example, if you miss by 10 yards at 181 and improve by 5 you would compare that to a 5 yard increase in distance and compare how your strokes gained improved in each scenario.

That doesn't make any sense. The golf ball travels farther forwards than it does laterally (unless you shank it or something).

[parallax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I love it when people use the word "arbitrary" as if that renders the findings irrelevant. The 20 yards is "arbitrary" too. I addressed this above.

They are arbitrary because they are on different scales, and the percentages are not zeroed.

Quote:

No it wouldn't. They operate on different scales. If we take the PGA Tour as the "zero" then an accuracy range is 3.5 to 7.5. 4 degrees. While a driver gap might be 195 to 305: 110 yards. A 20-yard improvement there is 18%. A 1 degree improvement from 7 to 6 is a 25% improvement toward the "cap." Now an 18% improvement trumps (by more than 2x) a 25% improvement.

And that is why it is flawed analysis. It is like comparing Celsius to Fahrenheit without converting or comparing yards to meters without converting.

If you want to make a comparison you have to use the same scale.

Quote:

I'm not misunderstanding.

I'm telling you that's an incredibly stupid way to look at two very different things like distance and accuracy. They have vastly different scales.

They don't have to be different scales. You have shown that you are competent a trig, it is easy to convert the angles into distance, and make a fair comparison.

[iacas]

They are arbitrary because they are on different scales, and the percentages are not zeroed.

Please look up the definition of the word arbitrary.

Since this discussion is going nowhere, I'm restricting you from the thread after I post this.

And that is why it is flawed analysis. It is like comparing Celsius to Fahrenheit without converting or comparing yards to meters without converting.

If you want to make a comparison you have to use the same scale.

Then convert the scale to "the best achievable average result" (PGA Tour player) to the worst (the 100s golfer). Measure it in lengths of fig newtons then if you'd like, but you still end up on the wrong side of the argument.

For someone who alleged earlier that I hadn't read his post, uh, you didn't read mine.

They don't have to be different scales. You have shown that you are competent a trig, it is easy to convert the angles into distance, and make a fair comparison.

[mvmac]

The most accurate comparison would be a 20 yard gain to a 20 yard accuracy improvement.

That doesn't make any sense.

You keep saying this, which I don't mind because you actually forced me to look it up and now I've learned something new, however, you don't really seem to understand it.  It's been repeated several times over that these are generalizations.  Nobody is attempting to apply this information to any one particular person, as far as I've read so far.  The example you've posted ISN'T "applying group statistics to an individual example," it's simply explaining to you what the findings of the group statistics are.  ON AVERAGE, a 100's shooter will drop 2.3 strokes by gaining 10% in distance and they'll only gain 1.0 strokes by gaining 14% in accuracy.

Well said. Don't understand why some of these guys don't get this, it's not complicated.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

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'm sure they're out there.

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

Just plain weird.

[RFKFREAK]

I have nothing much to contribute other than it seems that some people are arguing against the data just to be contradictory.

[DrvFrShow]

Okay here's my own example that doesn't involve a driver. Par 3 holes.

May 2014: Handicap 37. I needed my 7 wood to reach the two 163 yd par 3s on the front 9. I was consistently off to the right or to the left. Sometimes I was past the hole on the 2nd hole, and usually to the right on the 8th hole which is a 20' elevated green. On the back 9, there are two more par 3s. The 11th hole is 145 yds, and the 13th hole is 125 yds. The 11th hole is below the tee. I needed a 6 iron to hit it since it played 138 yds. I usually ended up left of the hole. The 13th hole I needed a 7 iron.

October 2014: Handicap 24.7. I play the 2nd hole with my 5 iron and can land on the green but still land back left. I'm not sure of my club distances yet. Things have changed. 8th hole. I've figured my club distances. They have a temporary green set up at 154 and I pull out my 7 iron and land the ball on the green again. I'd been using my 4H on the hole with success from 163, but today my 7 iron was much more accurate. Back 9, my 7 iron on the 11th hole lands right on the green again close to the pin. On 13 I land my PW on the green due to front pin placement at 118.

I had noticed that being able to play my short irons from a longer distance gained me accuracy, and was responsible for me being able to consistently break 100 for the last two months of the season. It was numerous other mistakes that kept me from doing better. I have a decent short game, and my short game got longer - and the accuracy remained.

Distance matters.

[billchao]

I have nothing much to contribute other than it seems that some people are arguing against the data just to be contradictory.

People will go to great lengths to defend what they believe in, which would normally be fine, except in this instance what they believe in has been proven empirically false. I don't see a reason for arguement except a stubborn refusal to learn something new.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFKFREAK

I have nothing much to contribute other than it seems that some people are arguing against the data just to be contradictory.

People will go to great lengths to defend what they believe in, which would normally be fine, except in this instance what they believe in has been proven empirically false. I don't see a reason for arguement except a stubborn refusal to learn something new.

Or they are trying to show us how smart they think they are.  I just don't understand how they are misreading the information presented.  It seems to me that they are not reading it at all.  They read the first sentence then fly off on a tangent or anecdote they had already prepared in their mind without understand what they are responding to.

[Ernest Jones]

Or they are trying to show us how smart they think they are.  I just don't understand how they are misreading the information presented.  It seems to me that they are not reading it at all.  They read the first sentence then fly off on a tangent or anecdote they had already prepared in their mind without understand what they are responding to.

Lol, this thread has become a great source of mirth. We need to start a "Hall Of Fame for People who don't quite Get It."