Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[iacas]

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.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them "proof" or that something has been "proven false."

The data certainly helps firm up a pretty solid foundation, though.

---

After thinking about it, I think the scaled percentage is the best way to go. Yardage goes from 195 to 305 or so (which is not to say you can't go off the scale on either end), and accuracy goes from 3.5° to 7.5°. If you're off the scale in the < 195 or > 7.5 directions, work on those things (which is similar to saying that you're well above or below the trendline).

[rb72]

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

I agree with this. So let's go with this. It qualifies the statement that "distance is more important than accuracy", which is what I've been advocating all along.

[Phil McGleno]

:doh:[quote name="rb72" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/486#post_1080454"]I agree with this. So let's go with this. It qualifies the statement that "distance is more important than accuracy", which is what I've been advocating all along. [/quote]

[No Mulligans]

This quote is from the USGA National Course Rating Database https //ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/ :

Quote:

Scratch Golfer
Is one who can play to a Course Handicap™ of zero on any and all rated golf courses. He (she) can hit tee shots an average of 250 (210) yards and reach a 470 (400)-yard hole in two shots.

Bogey Golfer
Is one with a Course Handicap of 20 (24). He (she) can hit tee shots an average of 200 (150) yards and can reach a 370 (280)-yard hole in two shots.

Interesting that their definitions are based on distance not accuracy.  Although, I would guess there is an assumed accuracy given someone's distance

[iacas]

Interesting that their definitions are based on distance not accuracy.  Although, I would guess there is an assumed accuracy given someone's distance

Yeah, there is. For example, we only rate certain things in the landing zone of a scratch golfer, but have to consider them along the entire route of the hole for the bogey golfer.

[AmazingWhacker]

Wow - a lot of opinions on this one.  To me, this just points out the overwhelming problem of "golf tips".  Usually there is some truth in the advice but it doesn't apply to most people who read the tip.

Telling beginning golfers who are hitting 150 yard drives that "accuracy is more important than distance" and to "work on the short game, where most strokes are saved" is borderline cruel.

When I first started out playing, I read and bought into this notion.  I didn't really have the depth of experience to know better.   The truth is my short game was always pretty good (for a recreational golfer).  It's not really any better now than it was 5 years ago but my scores have dropped dramatically.  The reason why?  I'm hitting all my clubs farther so it's taking me less strokes to get to the point where I can start to use my short game.  And, of course, the reason I'm hitting them farther is because I'm hitting them *better* which automatically adds more accuracy at the same time.

[luchnia]

Wow - a lot of opinions on this one.  To me, this just points out the overwhelming problem of "golf tips".  Usually there is some truth in the advice but it doesn't apply to most people who read the tip.

Telling beginning golfers who are hitting 150 yard drives that "accuracy is more important than distance" and to "work on the short game, where most strokes are saved" is borderline cruel.

When I first started out playing, I read and bought into this notion.  I didn't really have the depth of experience to know better.   The truth is my short game was always pretty good (for a recreational golfer).  It's not really any better now than it was 5 years ago but my scores have dropped dramatically.  The reason why?  I'm hitting all my clubs farther so it's taking me less strokes to get to the point where I can start to use my short game.  And, of course, the reason I'm hitting them farther is because I'm hitting them *better* which automatically adds more accuracy at the same time.

Interesting points. You state you are hitting all of your clubs farther because you are hitting them better. What do you mean by hitting them better? Can you share more clarity?

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="AmazingWhacker" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/486#post_1080671"]   Wow - a lot of opinions on this one.  To me, this just points out the overwhelming problem of "golf tips".  Usually there is some truth in the advice but it doesn't apply to most people who read the tip. Telling beginning golfers who are hitting 150 yard drives that "accuracy is more important than distance" and to "work on the short game, where most strokes are saved" is borderline cruel.   When I first started out playing, I read and bought into this notion.  I didn't really have the depth of experience to know better.   The truth is my short game was always pretty good (for a recreational golfer).  It's not really any better now than it was 5 years ago but my scores have dropped dramatically.  The reason why?  I'm hitting all my clubs farther so it's taking me less strokes to get to the point where I can start to use my short game.  And, of course, the reason I'm hitting them farther is because I'm hitting them *better* which automatically adds more accuracy at the same time. [/QUOTE] Interesting points. You state you are hitting all of your clubs farther because you are hitting them better. What do you mean by hitting them better? Can you share more clarity?

At least in my case, the distance gain is average distance increase. The accuracy comes from being able to swing much more relaxed. The effort for me to hit 250 yards now, is about 20% of where I would have needed when I started this game. Basically, a drive could have been a source for injury when I started, whereas now it's just another shot. Improved mechanics increases average distance and accuracy at the same time.

[inthehole]

^^ It's funny, the more I play (which is ALOT), the more distance I get ... with no more conscious effort to try to get more length .    I'm not talking a ton of extra distance, but I think through simply better center face ball striking and mechanics due to much repetition, it just naturally adds length without trying to add length.    My first couple years, I was capped out at 235-240; now with what still feels like the same swing (but with far better tempo), I'm getting 250-255 more often than not.     Sounds odd, but seems to be the case for me ...

[luchnia]

^^ It's funny, the more I play (which is ALOT), the more distance I get ... with no more conscious effort to try to get more length.    I'm not talking a ton of extra distance, but I think through simply better center face ball striking and mechanics due to much repetition, it just naturally adds length without trying to add length.    My first couple years, I was capped out at 235-240; now with what still feels like the same swing (but with far better tempo), I'm getting 250-255 more often than not.     Sounds odd, but seems to be the case for me ...

It is interesting but practice has much to do with it for sure. This quote from an earlier post hits home: " I'm hitting all my clubs farther so it's taking me less strokes to get to the point where I can start to use my short game" makes good sense to me. I have only been out to the course three times and I can definitely see just how important distance is, yet with a degree of accuracy being very important. Distance is of course bad if you are out in the woods somewhere.

I am very much an amateur at golf but I remember when I was young and into sports (baseball and basketball mostly) just how much difference actual practice made and not so much mechanics especially with baseball. I have seen some rather odd types of baseball swings that could hit consistently. How is golf so much different?

Is it as much mechanics as everyone makes out? When I look at Hogan I just don't see the locked in "mechanics" as so many teach. To me his swing even looks sort of odd. I am sure it is me because I lack in depth knowledge of golf swing mechanics. Please don't get me wrong as I know there are certain fundamentals that must be existent. If I can attain decent fundamentals and get good practice then that should equate to a fairly decent game. I think that is a reasonable assessment.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="inthehole" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/486#post_1080880"]   ^^ It's funny, the more I play (which is ALOT), the more distance I get ... with no more conscious effort to try to get more length .    I'm not talking a ton of extra distance, but I think through simply better center face ball striking and mechanics due to much repetition, it just naturally adds length without trying to add length.    My first couple years, I was capped out at 235-240; now with what still feels like the same swing (but with far better tempo), I'm getting 250-255 more often than not.     Sounds odd, but seems to be the case for me ... [/QUOTE] It is interesting but practice has much to do with it for sure. This quote from an earlier post hits home: " I'm hitting all my clubs farther so it's taking me less strokes to get to the point where I can start to use my short game" makes good sense to me. I have only been out to the course three times and I can definitely see just how important distance is, yet with a degree of accuracy being very important. Distance is of course bad if you are out in the woods somewhere. I am very much an amateur at golf but I remember when I was young and into sports (baseball and basketball mostly) just how much difference actual practice made and not so much mechanics especially with baseball. I have seen some rather odd types of baseball swings that could hit consistently. How is golf so much different? Is it as much mechanics as everyone makes out? When I look at Hogan I just don't see the locked in "mechanics" as so many teach. To me his swing even looks sort of odd. I am sure it is me because I lack in depth knowledge of golf swing mechanics. Please don't get me wrong as I know there are certain fundamentals that must be existent. If I can attain decent fundamentals and get good practice then that should equate to a fairly decent game. I think that is a reasonable assessment.

I've heard the same thing from coaches of other sports. They work with naturally talented kids all the time, so it's not surprising why they think the way they do. Also, Hogan does not have an "odd" swing in my opinion. The earlier quote from @AmazingWhacker is more or less what I've found to be the case. The less strokes it takes to get near the green or better yet on the green the lower your scores. It's pretty obvious when you think about it. In my case, the better my swing mechanics the better my performance on the course. This is because my swing feels much more confident. This in turn improves my metal aspect of the game. I "lost" my swing about 4 months ago due to a 2 week rest. The fact that I could lose it so easily meant that my mechanics were still not that good. My feel for impact was all wrong. Once I started working on it again, I built up little pieces a little bit at a time. I spent many hours on the course working on each piece. I was so afraid of losing it again that I continued even when injured. I took off about a week and started hitting a couple balls this morning. Still have my swing, this is because something clicked starting 3 months ago. It was good mechanics finally settling in. I'm really surprised how much time it takes to develop something that looks so simple, but it does. If you take your "natural swing" and practice for months you might get something like I had a year ago, when I hit hundreds of balls per day. It was a severly OTT swing with almost no weight shift. My swing was very unpredictable, some days I could kill that ball and on others I could barely hit the ball. At this point, I can make 50 swings on the course and expect that every shot will make reasonable forward advancement of the ball. Even when I hit thin or top a hybrid, I still have at least 100 yards straight motion. Not everyone needs a lot of instruction or methodical practice like me, but it helped my game tremendously.

[mvmac]

Interesting points. You state you are hitting all of your clubs farther because you are hitting them better. What do you mean by hitting them better? Can you share more clarity?

Hitting it more solid, ball first contact, center of the face.

How is golf so much different?

There are some big differences, biggest one is that the ball is on the ground in golf. The club has to be swung much more diagonal rather than horizontal but that off topic for this thread.

Is it as much mechanics as everyone makes out? When I look at Hogan I just don't see the locked in "mechanics" as so many teach. To me his swing even looks sort of odd. I am sure it is me because I lack in depth knowledge of golf swing mechanics. Please don't get me wrong as I know there are certain fundamentals that must be existent. If I can attain decent fundamentals and get good practice then that should equate to a fairly decent game. I think that is a reasonable assessment.

I would say that Hogan was fairly concerned with mechanics, more so than most of the guys he played with. Again, off topic for the thread but if you want to learn more about swing mechanics the link below would be a great place to start, tons of practical information.

http://thesandtrap.com/f/4088/swing-thoughts

[mdl]

I think the intuitive disagreement is from everyone's experience that if you try to swing out of your shoes and add 25 yards to your drives, you can't maintain accuracy, and in fact you become way less accurate, and you score MUCH worse even though you're hitting the ball farther.  But the "pro-distance" side isn't arguing for that.  They're just pointing out that if you have two players, one with 10% better distance and one with 10% better accuracy (measured in degrees off target) and with identical play around the greens, the one with 10% better distance will score a bit lower on average.  It's been shown conclusively with data that that's true.

[iacas]

I think the intuitive disagreement is from everyone's experience that if you try to swing out of your shoes and add 25 yards to your drives, you can't maintain accuracy, and in fact you become way less accurate, and you score MUCH worse even though you're hitting the ball farther.  But the "pro-distance" side isn't arguing for that.  They're just pointing out that if you have two players, one with 10% better distance and one with 10% better accuracy (measured in degrees off target) and with identical play around the greens, the one with 10% better distance will score a bit lower on average.  It's been shown conclusively with data that that's true.

Pretty much.

There are some things you can do to improve your distance alone (particularly with the driver), and we encourage people to do those things.

But, as @luchnia said above, most often distance improvements are tied to accuracy improvements (and vice versa) because both are sub-components of generic "golf skill" and people who improve their golf swings get better at both.

[Hammer 4]

Just thought I'd share this..Yesterday, my Son and I played 2 rounds on a 30 par 9 hole course. The 8th hole is a 350 yd par 4. About 6 months ago when I first played the course, my distance's were not near what they are now, and IIRC my second shot was with a PW and I needed to really flush it to get to the hole.

Anyways, yesterday, I hit a pretty good drive (for me )  and had lob wedge to the hole, hit within 3', but missed the putt, and made par.

My estimated drive was about 270, total, I got a good roll out, to bad my putting sucked for 2 rounds.

So, by using the instruction from Erik, Mike, and others  here, i.e. the 5 simple keys, I was able to not only gain more distance, but better ball striking. Most of the holes were hit with shorter irons than before, except when the wind kicked up in our faces.

Also implemented some of the LSW advice, and made a big difference. I know a 9 hole course isn't much to some of you, but I was pretty happy after 2 rounds yesterday, except for the putting... So yeah, distance is very important for me.

[natureboy]

Here's another p.o.v. on the topic.

https://golfanalytics.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/is-distance-or-accuracy-preferable-off-the-tee/

[iacas]

Here's another p.o.v. on the topic.

https://golfanalytics.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/is-distance-or-accuracy-preferable-off-the-tee/

That's actually off topic because it deals strictly with PGA Tour players.

That said, the conclusion (remember, for PGA Tour players) is:

Summing it all up:

Based on these results it’s clear that long/inaccurate hitters hit about as many greens as short/accurate hitters, but they produce way more value with their tee-shots. They hit their approach shots from easier positions in general than the shorter hitters and produce more birdies. However, they  hit into dangerous areas slightly more and make more bogeys than the short/accurate hitters. In fact, these results indicate that it’s easier to consistently hit greens when you’re in the fairway, but it’s easier to produce those close approach shots that turn into birdies when you’re closer to the pin

The main take-away though is that long/inaccurate hitters produce more value with their drives over the course of the season. They’re constantly hitting closer approach shots which leads to more birdies. The only advantage possessed by short/accurate hitters is avoiding bogeys, but at the cost of making fewer birdies.

[natureboy]

That's actually off topic because it deals strictly with PGA Tour players.

That said, the conclusion (remember, for PGA Tour players) is:

Whoops, fair point. Didn't read the thread title closely enough.