Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[billchao]

I don't understand what point you're trying to make with this statement. Is this a typo? In this thread the statement that better players are both longer and more accurate has been made repeatedly. Presumably better players have fewer flaws?

[spoiler=Ok sorry guys, last time I promise]I'm not sure what you are asking. The player I'm referring to is the one @Somerset Simon saw on the range. He was missing left and right, so he definitely has flaws there. Once he improves his mechanics, his distance and accuracy will both increase. Simon's implication that the guy will play better simply by swinging easier seems false. The guy will likely still miss both left and right, on top of hitting it shorter.[/spoiler]

[mvmac]

The question is...

At what point should they make that switch from focusing on distance to focusing on control?

When they are 15? When they are 18? When they are 21? When they are 25?

That's not the question and not the topic of the thread.

You also tend to view working on speed and control as two different things when a lot of the time you can do both.

The guy on the range was clearly still focusing on distance, and wasn't getting good results.

Simon

You're assuming you know what the guy on the range was focusing on. You're also assuming that if the golfer swung slower his accuracy would improve.

Even if he was solely concerned with distance that doesn't change the takeaway of this thread, that distance is a little more important than accuracy for amateurs. A single golfer going about something incorrectly doesn't prove or dis-prove anything.

[GHIN0011458]

I just don't get why specific examples don't apply to any of this? Everything in golf is a specific example. The last 3 pages look to be off topic so this thread is wearing out. You can't generalize a lie in the rough. "Oh just a normal lie in the rough" - every course has different rough and types of grass. You can't generalize a golf swing, they are like snowflakes and fingerprints. So why on earth could you generalize the game of golf. That is my issue here, I think that the better players on the site are closer to having accuracy as more important than distance. So the closer you get to the PGA tour, the more accuracy comes into play is this correct? There has to be a line that is crossed where the benefit of a degree of accuracy outweighs the benefit of gaining distance right(the 0.8 per round number is what I am getting at)? So for me, my smash factor is 1.46 on my last launch monitor reading. This matches up with the bottom of the PGA tour in 2014 meaning I am pretty close to my maximum distance right? The only thing I can do to increase distance other than gain .2 on my smash factor would be to increase my swing speed, and increase my launch angle. So am I getting close to that point where accuracy kicks in? So once I have physically reached my peak for distance then personally accuracy would become more important. Is that incorrect? Can accuracy even be worked on outside of reaching peak distance since distance=accuracy? I have to re-read the book but those were some questions that jumped out the first time.

[bste]

Ghin0011458, IMHO at your handicap, you've crossed over the fine line to accuracy over distance. It is a fine line specific to each individual golfer, only you can define when it is time to start focusing on direction over distance.

[iacas]

At what point should they make that switch from focusing on distance to focusing on control?

When they reach their approximate "max speed" they should focus on control. At every point until then, there should always be a blend of focus on both. The blend will not always be 50/50, and more often than not for amateur golfers, the blend should favor achieving more distance over achieving more accuracy.

I just don't get why specific examples don't apply to any of this?

Because talking about one specific thing does little to benefit the masses. You could come up with weird situations where the guy should focus 100% of his energy on accuracy OR distance, and that's NOT what is generally applicable to most "amateurs" which is, again, the subject of the thread.

You can't generalize a lie in the rough. "Oh just a normal lie in the rough" - every course has different rough and types of grass.

That's precisely why you have to generalize. You could say "240 in the fairway is WAY better than 280 in the rough" or "280 in the rough is WAY better than 240 in the fairway" depending on the specific rough.

Golf, despite being played on some VERY different holes and courses, can be generalized. The Decision Mapping in LSW does this pretty well IMO, while still allowing for the most specific of uses that suit each player uniquely.

So why on earth could you generalize the game of golf.

Because golf is, at the end, a two-dimensional problem: a golfer needs to cover 400 yards or whatever in few strokes. Both distance and accuracy play a role in that.

That is my issue here, I think that the better players on the site are closer to having accuracy as more important than distance.

a) Better players are not representative of "amateurs" as a whole.

b) Once you've reached your distance potential… why would you spend more time working on trying to get more distance?

You may need to stop looking at this thread through the eyes of a scratch-ish golfer.

So the closer you get to the PGA tour, the more accuracy comes into play is this correct? There has to be a line that is crossed where the benefit of a degree of accuracy outweighs the benefit of gaining distance right(the 0.8 per round number is what I am getting at)?

Yes, at the PGA Tour level, gaining 20 yards with just your tee shots is equivalent to gaining 1° of accuracy with just your tee shots, per Mark Broadie. Two things to note: 1) at the PGA Tour level, 20 yards is a 7% improvement in yardage while 1° is a 29% improvement in degrees accuracy (yet they both result in 0.8 strokes gained), and b) at every other level of golf, the 20 yards is more helpful (as much as > 2x) as the extra degree of accuracy. Oh, and c) the average 100s golfer isn't terribly inaccurate.

So for me, my smash factor is 1.46 on my last launch monitor reading. This matches up with the bottom of the PGA tour in 2014 meaning I am pretty close to my maximum distance right?

No. You can't assume that you have no more distance to gain. Perhaps you're hitting down with a poorly fitted driver and generating low launch and high spin conditions. Perhaps your technique is still robbing you of 5 MPH of clubhead speed. Etc.

You can't just look at smash factor and say "I'm hitting it as far as I can!" You may be for those impact conditions… but you might still be able to gain by changing the impact conditions!

So once I have physically reached my peak for distance then personally accuracy would become more important. Is that incorrect? Can accuracy even be worked on outside of reaching peak distance since distance=accuracy?

I think you've misunderstood the "distance = accuracy" parts.

Also, seriously people, after this response, enough with the specific examples.

For you , you likely have reached the point where you were "long enough" to focus on accuracy with a bit more weight over distance. Most good players are at this point - they can gain some more distance, but hitting the ball more accurately can be the bigger component.

But you are not like average golfers. The average amateur needs to work more on hitting the ball farther, as that will gain him more strokes saved than hitting the ball a little more accurately.

Totally spitballing here, and I won't be "held" to these numbers, but while a beginner might spend 70% of his time working on hitting the ball farther (more solidly helps tremendously here, with reasonable Keys #4 and #5), a PGA Tour pro might spend 90% of his time working on accuracy because they've pretty much maxed out their distance. Given the number and scores of average golfers, they are still generally on the side of being best served to work on distance over accuracy. At some point it "crosses over" a bit, yes. It may be the 70-year-old golfer who still shoots 100 but has reached his peak swing speed of 78 MPH with a driver, so accuracy is important (assuming of course he doesn't mis-hit shots, in which case… distance again becomes important, because mis-hits don't go very far).

Remember, too, "the golf swing" is always a blend of both distance AND accuracy, particularly for the average amateur. Nobody's ever said "work only on distance." A PGA Tour pro won't ever work JUST on accuracy and ignore distance… if they were to do that, they could probably get to about 1 or 1.5° of accuracy instead of the 3.5° they achieve now… just by making shorter, more controlled swings that hit the ball 75% as far as they go now.

[GHIN0011458]

When they reach their approximate "max speed" they should focus on control. At every point until then, there should always be a blend of focus on both. The blend will not always be 50/50, and more often than not for amateur golfers, the blend should favor achieving more distance over achieving more accuracy.

…

Remember, too, "the golf swing" is always a blend of both distance AND accuracy, particularly for the average amateur. Nobody's ever said "work only on distance." A PGA Tour pro won't ever work JUST on accuracy and ignore distance… if they were to do that, they could probably get to about 1 or 1.5° of accuracy instead of the 3.5° they achieve now… just by making shorter, more controlled swings that hit the ball 75% as far as they go now.

Thank you, this is by far my favorite reply you have ever given me. I think that is where the question from the OP gets hairy for some. From reading through the thread, the lower HC players are the ones who are typically giving the most push back on the distance vs accuracy for an amateur argument. Maybe Somerset and others would agree with this is well?

[Lihu]

I'm glad people are starting to agree more now.

With over 600 posts, this thread amazes me. I should start a thread like " Is the driver really that important for amateurs? "

[iacas]

Thank you, this is by far my favorite reply you have ever given me. I think that is where the question from the OP gets hairy for some. From reading through the thread, the lower HC players are the ones who are typically giving the most push back on the distance vs accuracy for an amateur argument. Maybe Somerset and others would agree with this is well?

I feel that if what you say there is true it's simply a matter of people either not really reading the thread or being able to see beyond their own experiences.

The average bogey golfer is not great.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

When they reach their approximate "max speed" they should focus on control. At every point until then, there should always be a blend of focus on both. The blend will not always be 50/50, and more often than not for amateur golfers, the blend should favor achieving more distance over achieving more accuracy.

…

Remember, too, "the golf swing" is always a blend of both distance AND accuracy, particularly for the average amateur. Nobody's ever said "work only on distance." A PGA Tour pro won't ever work JUST on accuracy and ignore distance… if they were to do that, they could probably get to about 1 or 1.5° of accuracy instead of the 3.5° they achieve now… just by making shorter, more controlled swings that hit the ball 75% as far as they go now.

Thank you, this is by far my favorite reply you have ever given me. I think that is where the question from the OP gets hairy for some. From reading through the thread, the lower HC players are the ones who are typically giving the most push back on the distance vs accuracy for an amateur argument. Maybe Somerset and others would agree with this is well?

Realistically, most amateur golfers will arrive at their "length" through various means and can't/won't improve on it further.   It may be due to lack of resource (can't really hire the best instructor), time (can't practice enough), motivation ('fers just wanna have fun), ...     I tried to increase distance a few times and each time I gave up and ended up spending much of my practice time on accuracy, and short game.    It may be just me but at my range, I see most golfers are like me.   I don't see them come to range with "I am working on increasing my ball striking distance."    I see some working on shot shaping, others getting ready for the next day's round, and many more just hitting the balls away to get their swing right.

[9424tm]

Realistically, most amateur golfers will arrive at their "length" through various means and can't/won't improve on it further.   It may be due to lack of resource (can't really hire the best instructor), time (can't practice enough), motivation ('fers just wanna have fun), ...     I tried to increase distance a few times and each time I gave up and ended up spending much of my practice time on accuracy, and short game.    It may be just me but at my range, I see most golfers are like me.   I don't see them come to range with "I am working on increasing my ball striking distance."    I see some working on shot shaping, others getting ready for the next day's round, and many more just hitting the balls away to get their swing right.

Working on shot shaping should be the last priority for anyone. I know that it's off topic but it needed to be said.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Realistically, most amateur golfers will arrive at their "length" through various means and can't/won't improve on it further.   It may be due to lack of resource (can't really hire the best instructor), time (can't practice enough), motivation ('fers just wanna have fun), ...     I tried to increase distance a few times and each time I gave up and ended up spending much of my practice time on accuracy, and short game.    It may be just me but at my range, I see most golfers are like me.   I don't see them come to range with "I am working on increasing my ball striking distance."    I see some working on shot shaping, others getting ready for the next day's round, and many more just hitting the balls away to get their swing right.

Working on shot shaping should be the last priority for anyone. I know that it's off topic but it needed to be said.

There's other things with high priorities for sure and every golfer's mileage will vary.   But I think shot shaping is needed for those who are starting to regularly break 90 and moving in the direction of where you are at.   I think it separates bogey golfers from the next level of golfers.   When I had lower HI, I can draw shots to go around trouble - I had to use it often (chagrin).   Sometimes, I hit "fade" drives.  I only used draws and fades when it was absolutely needed. Back to OP (sort of), fade shots can increase distance, therefore, can be an important aspects of amateur golfer skill set.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9424tm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Realistically, most amateur golfers will arrive at their "length" through various means and can't/won't improve on it further.   It may be due to lack of resource (can't really hire the best instructor), time (can't practice enough), motivation ('fers just wanna have fun), ...     I tried to increase distance a few times and each time I gave up and ended up spending much of my practice time on accuracy, and short game.    It may be just me but at my range, I see most golfers are like me.   I don't see them come to range with "I am working on increasing my ball striking distance."    I see some working on shot shaping, others getting ready for the next day's round, and many more just hitting the balls away to get their swing right.

Working on shot shaping should be the last priority for anyone. I know that it's off topic but it needed to be said.

There's other things with high priorities for sure and every golfer's mileage will vary.   But I think shot shaping is needed for those who are starting to regularly break 90 and moving in the direction of where you are at.   I think it separates bogey golfers from the next level of golfers.   When I had lower HI, I can draw shots to go around trouble - I had to use it often (chagrin).   Sometimes, I hit "fade" drives.  I only used draws and fades when it was absolutely needed.  Back to OP (sort of), fade shots can increase distance, therefore, can be an important aspects of amateur golfer skill set.

I find that my draw shots are the ones that run a lot longer than my fade shots.

In any case, I rarely succeed if I am actually trying to get a specific shaped shot. I have seen a lot of people hit a fade and go "Yup, a fade", "Meant to slice that one around that tree", "Did you see that hook?!?". Joking. . .

Most of us double digit guys need to focus on getting the longest distance we can get with the least amount of spin. Distance is one of the most important things that an amateur golf needs to get better.

Anecdotally, I have a pretty bad short game, and yet I can shoot really low scores on shorter 6000 yard courses. My worst days are when my long game is bad. My best days are when my long game is good, and my short game is not terrible.

[inthehole]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

Realistically, most amateur golfers will arrive at their "length" through various means and can't/won't improve on it further.   It may be due to lack of resource (can't really hire the best instructor), time (can't practice enough), motivation ('fers just wanna have fun), ...     I tried to increase distance a few times and each time I gave up and ended up spending much of my practice time on accuracy, and short game.    It may be just me but at my range, I see most golfers are like me.   I don't see them come to range with "I am working on increasing my ball striking distance."    I see some working on shot shaping, others getting ready for the next day's round, and many more just hitting the balls away to get their swing right.

Working on shot shaping should be the last priority for anyone. I know that it's off topic but it needed to be said.

Funny, I'm not a big practice guy ... I'm learning to move the ball around (the most enjoyable part of golf for me is when it works), but more often than not it backfires.   Hence, the few times I do go to the range, it's to work on shot shaping - trying to do that on the course without practicing is just not consistent for me ...

[rkim291968]

Almost 2 years ago, I had 12+ HI.  Now it's hovering 19 - 20.   I lost 7 strokes.  Here's my unscientific best educated guess on where I lost the 7 strokes.

• 2 strokes on lost distance - 10  - 25 yards depending on club.   Part of lost distance may be due to course change.  I don't get the roll on the new course due to its soft condition, more uphills than downhills.  The other part may be due to everything else - getting older, injuries, and everything else I can blame.
• 2 strokes on putting and short game.   I know why this is.  I stopped practicing putting as much as I used to.   I used to practice putting a lot.  I also used to practice 40 - 60 yards pitching a lot.  I neglected this a bit too.   Consequently, my total putts/round went from 30+ total putts to 32+.   Why the reduction in practice?   I needed more practice time on my ball striking accuracy - see below.
• 3 strokes on course change.   The new course is shorter but requires accuracy as there are too many OB areas & danger zones.   The old (Muni) course is much longer but I can swing away into trouble and still end up with bogey or double bogey at worst.   Very little OB areas.  Greens don't have much danger zones - less bunkers, smaller bunkers, no deep roughs, ...    If I go back to my old course, I believe my HI will go down by 2 - 3 points immediately.

[iacas]

Let's stick to the topic please.

It isn't the short game, shaping the ball, etc.

Thank you.

[Somerset Simon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

When they reach their approximate "max speed" they should focus on control. At every point until then, there should always be a blend of focus on both. The blend will not always be 50/50, and more often than not for amateur golfers, the blend should favor achieving more distance over achieving more accuracy.

…

Remember, too, "the golf swing" is always a blend of both distance AND accuracy, particularly for the average amateur. Nobody's ever said "work only on distance." A PGA Tour pro won't ever work JUST on accuracy and ignore distance… if they were to do that, they could probably get to about 1 or 1.5° of accuracy instead of the 3.5° they achieve now… just by making shorter, more controlled swings that hit the ball 75% as far as they go now.

Thank you, this is by far my favorite reply you have ever given me. I think that is where the question from the OP gets hairy for some. From reading through the thread, the lower HC players are the ones who are typically giving the most push back on the distance vs accuracy for an amateur argument. Maybe Somerset and others would agree with this is well?

Yes, that's pretty much the way I see it.

You never focus entirely on distance or entirely on control.

But the balance gradually moves more towards control as your technique improves and you get closer to your maximum distance.

Simon

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GHIN0011458

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

When they reach their approximate "max speed" they should focus on control. At every point until then, there should always be a blend of focus on both. The blend will not always be 50/50, and more often than not for amateur golfers, the blend should favor achieving more distance over achieving more accuracy.

…

Remember, too, "the golf swing" is always a blend of both distance AND accuracy, particularly for the average amateur. Nobody's ever said "work only on distance." A PGA Tour pro won't ever work JUST on accuracy and ignore distance… if they were to do that, they could probably get to about 1 or 1.5° of accuracy instead of the 3.5° they achieve now… just by making shorter, more controlled swings that hit the ball 75% as far as they go now.

Thank you, this is by far my favorite reply you have ever given me. I think that is where the question from the OP gets hairy for some. From reading through the thread, the lower HC players are the ones who are typically giving the most push back on the distance vs accuracy for an amateur argument. Maybe Somerset and others would agree with this is well?

Yes, that's pretty much the way I see it.

You never focus entirely on distance or entirely on control.

But the balance gradually moves more towards control as your technique improves and you get closer to your maximum distance.

Simon

Would have avoided a lot of discussions.

[GHIN0011458]

So @firedragon76 there you have it.. where did you go anyways?