Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[Bechambo]

I'm coming into this discussion late, and not sure what has already been addressed. However, have the terms been defined and agreed upon? It seems to me that 'accuracy' is a measurement of closeness to a value or point, having two or more dimensions (such as the hole). Whereas distance is a single dimension, which I would assume would be part of accuracy. In this sense, it seems, the argument is mute, as it would assert that the wheels are more important than the car; these things are not comparable as it would be comparing the part to the whole.

That said, if 'accuracy' is referring to intended direction only (minus distance of course), then the comparison of directional control vs. distance would seem more clear.

To this end, in my opinion, it depends. Distance matters more, so long as directional control is within a certain margin of error. Directional control matters more if you are not within a certain margin of error. Although, I think it sounds weird saying something matters more, as these are parts of a whole that are both necessary in play. Given whatever conditions and state you're playing in, in any moment, determine what is necessary to play your best shots. If your distance is putting you out of play in a situation, shoot em' short and in play. If not and your just playing out of some rough more, hit rough shots. It's all scenario based. I think the distance side would simply say 'the scenarios where distance would help an amateur more, occurs more often.'

[boogielicious]

I'm coming into this discussion late, and not sure what has already been addressed. However, have the terms been defined and agreed upon? It seems to me that 'accuracy' is a measurement of closeness to a value or point, having two or more dimensions (such as the hole). Whereas distance is a single dimension, which I would assume would be part of accuracy. In this sense, it seems, the argument is mute, as it would assert that the wheels are more important than the car; these things are not comparable as it would be comparing the part to the whole.

That said, if 'accuracy' is referring to intended direction only (minus distance of course), then the comparison of directional control vs. distance would seem more clear.

To this end, in my opinion, it depends. Distance matters more, so long as directional control is within a certain margin of error. Directional control matters more if you are not within a certain margin of error. Although, I think it sounds weird saying something matters more, as these are parts of a whole that are both necessary in play. Given whatever conditions and state you're playing in, in any moment, determine what is necessary to play your best shots. If your distance is putting you out of play in a situation, shoot em' short and in play. If not and your just playing out of some rough more, hit rough shots. It's all scenario based. I think the distance side would simply say 'the scenarios where distance would help an amateur more, occurs more often.'

You are coming in late.  This has already been discussed.

@Bechambo .  It addresses most of your comments and is in agreement.

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

[Somerset Simon]

Here are the stats for the 2014 PGA Tour.

I know these are pros and the thread is about amateurs, but it's still interesting.

The first chart shows driving distance vs. average score.

The second chart shows fairway percentage vs. average score.

The data was taken from the following site:

http://www.pgatour.com/stats.html

I have to admit that driving distance does appear to be slightly more beneficial than driving accuracy, especially for lower scoring players.

However, neither chart shows a very strong correlation.

If I had not added the trend lines, could you have guessed accurately where they would go?

One interesting observation is that the worst scoring players tend to hit the ball further than the average guys, suggesting there really is an optimal distance for any given level of accuracy, and hitting it further can indeed be counter productive if you're not accurate enough to control the extra distance.

Everyone will see something different in these charts, but it seems clear to me that there is a lot more to shooting low scores than simply hitting the ball a long way.

[saevel25]

However, neither chart shows a very strong correlation.

If I had not added the trend lines, could you have guessed accurately where they would go?

Well golf isn't all about driving distance. Still, in the end if fairways hit isn't a leading indicator or significantly more important than distance then where would you rather be, closer to the hole or farther away?

I rather be closer to the hole.

[Lihu]

[SPOILER=OT (Pros)][quote name="Somerset Simon" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/504#post_1082182"]Here are the stats for the 2014 PGA Tour. I know these are pros and the thread is about amateurs, but it's still interesting. The first chart shows driving distance vs. average score. The second chart shows fairway percentage vs. average score. The data was taken from the following site: [URL=http://www.pgatour.com/stats.html]http://www.pgatour.com/stats.html[/URL] I have to admit that driving distance does appear to be slightly more beneficial than driving accuracy, especially for lower scoring players. However, neither chart shows a very strong correlation. If I had not added the trend lines, could you have guessed accurately where they would go? One interesting observation is that the worst scoring players tend to hit the ball further than the average guys, suggesting there really is an optimal distance for any given level of accuracy, and hitting it further can indeed be counter productive if you're not accurate enough to control the extra distance. Everyone will see something different in these charts, but it seems clear to me that there is a lot more to shooting low scores than simply hitting the ball a long way. [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/110035/] [/URL] [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/110036/] [/URL] [/quote] What I see is that distance has just a little more effect than accuracy. If you replace the parabola on top with a line, it might make for a better comparison.[/SPOILER]

[rkim291968]

Good stuff.

One of my 2015 golf goals is to get professionally fitted.   I have 8 year old (on average) clubs.  I think new clubs can add at least 5 yards in distance but I am hoping it adds 10 yards.   All things being equal, that should improve my HI by a stroke or two without adding accuracy.  If I add accuracy on top, perhaps, it translates into 2 - 3 stroke improvement.   Here's hoping.

[Lihu]

Good stuff.

One of my 2015 golf goals is to get professionally fitted.   I have 8 year old (on average) clubs.  I think new clubs can add at least 5 yards in distance but I am hoping it adds 10 yards.   All things being equal, that should improve my HI by a stroke or two without adding accuracy.  If I add accuracy on top, perhaps, it translates into 2 - 3 stroke improvement.   Here's hoping.

The BB irons are really long. I think the RSI1 will improve your accuracy and to some degree length, but the BB are really long. They are really like hybrids in an iron type body.

[rkim291968]

The BB irons are really long. I think the RSI1 will improve your accuracy and to some degree length, but the BB are really long. They are really like hybrids in an iron type body.

Last week, I fitted for driver and it is arriving today.   On GolfSmith launch monitor, the new driver (TM Jetspeed 10.5 Stiff stock shaft) gave me 10+ more yards on average.   I am fitting for iron this afternoon.  I already tried BB so I know it goes longer.  I am hoping there are other irons for me without forking over $1000.   Once all new clubs arrive and I get some rounds in, I can report my findings on what it did for my score.

[Valleygolfer]

Last week, I fitted for driver and it is arriving today.   On GolfSmith launch monitor, the new driver (TM Jetspeed 10.5 Stiff stock shaft) gave me 10+ more yards on average.   I am fitting for iron this afternoon.  I already tried BB so I know it goes longer.  I am hoping there are other irons for me without forking over $1000.   Once all new clubs arrive and I get some rounds in, I can report my findings on what it did for my score.

Hope you got that Jetspeed cheap. They can barely give those away.

[iacas]

:offtopic: Let's stick to the topic please.

[Somerset Simon]

Let's stick to the topic please.

Why did you mark my post #507 as off topic?

It shows how distance and accuracy are related to average score.

Surely that is relevant to this thread, even if the stats only include pros.

Seems like you are just censoring anything that casts any doubt on the distance trumps accuracy theory.

With all the references to Lowest Score Wins, it would be easy to think this thread is just an advertising campaign.

[Golfingdad]

Why did you mark my post #507 as off topic?

It shows how distance and accuracy are related to average score.

Surely that is relevant to this thread, even if the stats only include pros.

Seems like you are just censoring anything that casts any doubt on the distance trumps accuracy theory.

With all the references to Lowest Score Wins, it would be easy to think this thread is just an advertising campaign.

It's not censored ... you can very easily click the tab and open and read the text.  I'd argue that putting something behind a "spoiler" is good for you because everybody is more curious to read something that "they're not supposed to see."

It's simply a reminder that pros aren't the topic when it clearly says AMATEURS right in the title.  That's all.

[colin007]

With all the references to Lowest Score Wins, it would be easy to think this thread is just an advertising campaign.

um, even if it was, you know whose website this is....he's got every right.

[iacas]

Why did you mark my post #507 as off topic?

Because it is.

It shows how distance and accuracy are related to average score.

Surely that is relevant to this thread, even if the stats only include pros.

For PGA Tour pros. The topic is amateurs. PGA Tour pros are a very, very closely bunched group, and virtually all of them are near to their peak distance.

Seems like you are just censoring anything that casts any doubt on the distance trumps accuracy theory.

It's not censorship to ask that you keep the discussion on topic. None of your post was deleted. Plus your post supported the idea that distance mattered more, even at the PGA Tour level, so…

With all the references to Lowest Score Wins, it would be easy to think this thread is just an advertising campaign.

Riiiiiiiiight.

Let's stick to the topic now please. Moderators will delete or move any other OT posts.

[RFKFREAK]

um, even if it was, you know whose website this is....he's got every right.

Quite the gem!

[WUTiger]

I thought so too but not according to a late 60's former +2 handicapper I recently play with.   He told me that he gained distance as he aged.  How?  He told me that equipment (club, ball) help add distance and he is hitting further now than ever.  But I think once one reaches 70, even the new equipment can't help.  I will find out in 17 years or so. ...

At our club, a 70-something English gentleman has about a 10 HDCP. I often outdrive him, but he's always straight.

And, he's a wizard with the hybrids and half wedges. He will shoot in the low 70s about once a month, other times he hits the 80s.

It has a lot to do with how he's feeling on a given day. If he has sore wrists (arthritis) and a strained back, he doesn't play so well. But if he's feeling good, he had one of those rounds.

He has an old-style swing with pronounced pronation (rotation) of the forearms on the takeaway, and really gets a lot of torque on the followthrough.

[Pretzel]

Just a small anecdote here to prove why distance is necessary for amateurs to compete in tournaments against others of similar skill.

There was a player in my school district who played well all year, placing solidly in the 70's for most with a round under par on a shorter course. He was, however, a shorter hitting golfer. All the tournaments played before regionals and state were on shorter courses, with the longest being from 6700 yards. Regionals were played at around 6900 with state at about 7100 yards. He had a more difficult time at the regional tournament, scoring around 80, but state is where he started to struggle. Both days ended up with a score in the mid 80's. He just couldn't keep up with the other players who were reaching the par fives in two (the only par five at the state tournament that was really unreachable was a 545 yard one that played into the wind with a green over a lake). The par 3's, of which only one played under 200 yards (but was still 160 yards with a canyon island green), were especially tough since he had to hit hybrids and woods while others were hitting mid to long irons. There was one drivable par 4 on the first day that he was unable to reach, which hurt him in relation to the field. It was just mostly the fact that the average par 4 was about 430 yards long (427.2 to be more precise) which meant that he would hit a 250-270 yard drive and still be left with anywhere from 160-180 yards to the green. Meanwhile most of the other top competitors were hitting the ball more in the range of 270-290, which left them with 140-160 yard approach shots. It made a huge difference, and I can guarantee that there wasn't a player in the top 10 who didn't average at least 270 yards off the tee with their driver (I know that at least one of them averaged right at or over 300 yards).

Distance is a huge advantage, and if you can't keep up you will certainly be left in the dust when courses get to championship lengths. A short iron from the rough on most courses is usually just as accurate, if not more so, than a mid-long iron from the fairway.

[Aflighter]

Just a small anecdote here to prove why distance is necessary for amateurs to compete in tournaments against others of similar skill.

There was a player in my school district who played well all year, placing solidly in the 70's for most with a round under par on a shorter course. He was, however, a shorter hitting golfer. All the tournaments played before regionals and state were on shorter courses, with the longest being from 6700 yards. Regionals were played at around 6900 with state at about 7100 yards. He had a more difficult time at the regional tournament, scoring around 80, but state is where he started to struggle. Both days ended up with a score in the mid 80's. He just couldn't keep up with the other players who were reaching the par fives in two (the only par five at the state tournament that was really unreachable was a 545 yard one that played into the wind with a green over a lake). The par 3's, of which only one played under 200 yards (but was still 160 yards with a canyon island green), were especially tough since he had to hit hybrids and woods while others were hitting mid to long irons. There was one drivable par 4 on the first day that he was unable to reach, which hurt him in relation to the field. It was just mostly the fact that the average par 4 was about 430 yards long (427.2 to be more precise) which meant that he would hit a 250-270 yard drive and still be left with anywhere from 160-180 yards to the green. Meanwhile most of the other top competitors were hitting the ball more in the range of 270-290, which left them with 140-160 yard approach shots. It made a huge difference, and I can guarantee that there wasn't a player in the top 10 who didn't average at least 270 yards off the tee with their driver (I know that at least one of them averaged right at or over 300 yards).

Distance is a huge advantage, and if you can't keep up you will certainly be left in the dust when courses get to championship lengths. A short iron from the rough on most courses is usually just as accurate, if not more so, than a mid-long iron from the fairway.

Wow,if that guy is a shorter hitter with 250-270 yard drives then I must be either a lil girl or old man since mine only go 220.This is what I said about distance really being important on the longer courses but anything under 6600 yards or so should be fairly playable for anyone who can drive the ball 200 yards.