Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[billchao]

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

Yup, that thread is here:

I recommend that you guys who stated a desire to shape the ball should pay special attention to the section titled " A Quick Word on Shaping the Ball "

[Technician7179]

Only if you don't have it

[Lihu]

Only if you don't have it

Nice answer, and I am of the opinion that you can never really have enough.

[royroy858]

I am a firm believer in accuracy. I believe this way for the following reasons: 1. As a young boy, I played golf with two brothers who were 81 and 83 years old. Both of them were around 5'7", weighed around 160lbs. And drove the ball roughly 180 yards. Both of them shot in the middle to high 80's. Both of them focused their attention on keeping the ball in play, as well as on chipping and putting. 2. Also, as a young boy, my uncle played golf with me. He hit a banana ball on just about every shot. No kidding, his ball curved 20-30 yards on all of his long shots. Heck, he even sliced his pitching wedge. While everyone on the tee box was aiming down the middle of the fairway, Uncle Wesley was aiming 30 yards to the left of the left hand side of the fairway (he was right handed). I would say 6-7 times out of ten, he ended up in the fairway. Also, he consistently shot in the low to middle 80's. 3. Many years ago, I lowered my scores by focusing on chipping, pitching and putting (90 minutes a week). This way, when I was within 40 yards of the green, I could consistently (6-7 times out of 10) get the ball in the hole in three shots or less. 4. By slowing my swing down and focusing more on accuracy rather than distance, I kept my drives in play more often. 5. Finally, Jack Nicklaus wrote the following in one of his books: "I would rather hit my drive 250 yards down the center of the fairway than be 270 yards in the rough." Having written all of that, I believe the game is more enjoyable with an emphasis on accuracy, keeping the ball in play and in the short grass! Besides, golf is a hobby. Hobbies are supposed to be fun

[Yukari]

I am a firm believer in accuracy. I believe this way for the following reasons:

1. As a young boy, I played golf with two brothers who were 81 and 83 years old. Both of them were around 5'7", weighed around 160lbs. And drove the ball roughly 180 yards. Both of them shot in the middle to high 80's. Both of them focused their attention on keeping the ball in play, as well as on chipping and putting.

2. Also, as a young boy, my uncle played golf with me. He hit a banana ball on just about every shot. No kidding, his ball curved 20-30 yards on all of his long shots. Heck, he even sliced his pitching wedge. While everyone on the tee box was aiming down the middle of the fairway, Uncle Wesley was aiming 30 yards to the left of the left hand side of the fairway (he was right handed). I would say 6-7 times out of ten, he ended up in the fairway. Also, he consistently shot in the low to middle 80's.

3. Many years ago, I lowered my scores by focusing on chipping, pitching and putting (90 minutes a week). This way, when I was within 40 yards of the green, I could consistently (6-7 times out of 10) get the ball in the hole in three shots or less.

4. By slowing my swing down and focusing more on accuracy rather than distance, I kept my drives in play more often.

5. Finally, Jack Nicklaus wrote the following in one of his books:

"I would rather hit my drive 250 yards down the center of the fairway than be 270 yards in the rough."

Having written all of that, I believe the game is more enjoyable with an emphasis on accuracy, keeping the ball in play and in the short grass!

Besides, golf is a hobby. Hobbies are supposed to be fun

Don

 910 D2, 8.5˚, Adila RIP 60 S-Flex
980F 15˚
 EZone Blades (3-PW) Dynamic Gold S-200
  Vokey wedges, 52˚; 56˚; and 60˚
 2014 Scotty Cameron Select Newport 2

[iacas]

5. Finally, Jack Nicklaus wrote the following in one of his books:

"I would rather hit my drive 250 yards down the center of the fairway than be 270 yards in the rough."

If that were the case on all 14 holes where you hit driver, I might agree (depending on how tough the rough was - two clubs is a nice advantage).

But if it was 10/14 fairways hitting each drive 250, or 9/14 balls hitting each drive 270… the choice is not as clear.

@royroy858 , welcome to the site. Check out the rest of this thread as well.

[royroy858]

Yukari, I'd like to share two points with you: 1. Saying "had they had the distance they would have been shooting in the 70's" does not apply to them. These were two guys in the 80's. They had played golf in the 70's a couple of decades earlier. But because of the aging process, a couple of back surgeries and a limited range of motion, thy could no longer play in the 70's - nor should anyone expect them to play at that level. So, distance is not what matters to guys this age ;-) Yes, I understand the argument that distance matters - and in some cases I do believe it's true. However, I disagree that distance matters in all cases, for every golfer and at every stage of life. 2. Golf was a hobby for them - as it is for many of us. Therefore, as a hobby, it should be fun for all of us. While getting more distance sounds fun, for those of us who've worked at it for extended periods of time, we know that it takes a lot of work - and it is definitely not fun going through the process. We also know that this distance can and will fade with time - as we get older. So, let's have more fun with the game and focus on those things that help us win lunch bets and put a few extra dollars in our pockets because we kept the ball on the short grass. --- iacas, Thank you! --- One last comment: I used to believe that distance was king. I felt that way until I began to spend a lot of time focusing on my wedges. In the space of four months, I spent over 60 hours on the range working exclusively on my wedges. After hitting thousands of balls on the range and after becoming comfortable, confident and consistent at hitting 7-8 out of 10 balls inside of ten feet from 45-72 yards, I then changed my mind on distance. I started to focus more on accuracy off the tee and distance around greens. To date, this new mindset has served me well. I lose fewer balls, have lowered my scores and enjoy the game more :-)

[iacas]

However, I disagree that distance matters in all cases, for every golfer and at every stage of life.

You're disagreeing with a straw man, as nobody is saying that.

Your example is two guys who were pretty much achieving their max distance. If you could somehow magically make them more accurate but keep their 180-yard drives, or give them more distance but keep their accuracy… the distance would have likely helped them more than the accuracy. That's all @Yukari was saying (I believe).

I used to believe that distance was king. I felt that way until I began to spend a lot of time focusing on my wedges. In the space of four months, I spent over 60 hours on the range working exclusively on my wedges. After hitting thousands of balls on the range and after becoming comfortable, confident and consistent at hitting 7-8 out of 10 balls inside of ten feet from 45-72 yards, I then changed my mind on distance. I started to focus more on accuracy off the tee and distance around greens. To date, this new mindset has served me well. I lose fewer balls, have lowered my scores and enjoy the game more

That's an unusual situation, as you shouldn't really have very many 45-72-yard shots. It's not an important skill.

Also, 7-8 out of 10 inside 10 feet? You'd have led the PGA Tour (or at least been in the top two or three): http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.076.2014.html .

Please do yourself the favor of reading the rest of the thread, @royroy858 .

[Jakester23]

Yukari, I'd like to share two points with you: 1. Saying "had they had the distance they would have been shooting in the 70's" does not apply to them. These were two guys in the 80's. They had played golf in the 70's a couple of decades earlier. But because of the aging process, a couple of back surgeries and a limited range of motion, thy could no longer play in the 70's - nor should anyone expect them to play at that level. So, distance is not what matters to guys this age ;-) Yes, I understand the argument that distance matters - and in some cases I do believe it's true. However, I disagree that distance matters in all cases, for every golfer and at every stage of life. 2. Golf was a hobby for them - as it is for many of us. Therefore, as a hobby, it should be fun for all of us. While getting more distance sounds fun, for those of us who've worked at it for extended periods of time, we know that it takes a lot of work - and it is definitely not fun going through the process. We also know that this distance can and will fade with time - as we get older. So, let's have more fun with the game and focus on those things that help us win lunch bets and put a few extra dollars in our pockets because we kept the ball on the short grass. --- iacas, Thank you! --- One last comment: I used to believe that distance was king. I felt that way until I began to spend a lot of time focusing on my wedges. In the space of four months, I spent over 60 hours on the range working exclusively on my wedges. After hitting thousands of balls on the range and after becoming comfortable, confident and consistent at hitting 7-8 out of 10 balls inside of ten feet from 45-72 yards, I then changed my mind on distance. I started to focus more on accuracy off the tee and distance around greens. To date, this new mindset has served me well. I lose fewer balls, have lowered my scores and enjoy the game more :-)

Why even practice 45-72 yards unless you either hit the ball so far you have that approach a lot on par 4's. Or your so short you hit your 3rd shot from that distance all the time on par 4's. Accuracy with wedges isn't the topic of this thread. What does focusing on accuracy off the tee and distance around the greens even mean?

[royroy858]

OK. I will read the rest of the thread

[turtleback]

If you tell me there are two players and the only thing you know about them is that one averages 240 and the other averages 220 I'd say that it is at least 60-40 that the longer guy is the better golfer.

Now if you tell me that there are two players and the only thing you know about them is that  one is more accurate than the other (by some knowable measure that is better than just fairways hit) I'd say that tells you very little about which is better.

[Aflighter]

If you tell me there are two players and the only thing you know about them is that one averages 240 and the other averages 220 I'd say that it is at least 60-40 that the longer guy is the better golfer.

Now if you tell me that there are two players and the only thing you know about them is that  one is more accurate than the other (by some knowable measure that is better than just fairways hit) I'd say that tells you very little about which is better.

I tell you what.Ill take the guy who hits it 220 and is more accurate and you take the guy hitting it 240 and not as accurate and my guy will win pretty much every time.Now if the longer guy is hitting it 270-280 then yeah but only 20 yards difference will not help him unless hes accurate.

[iacas]

I tell you what.Ill take the guy who hits it 220 and is more accurate and you take the guy hitting it 240 and not as accurate and my guy will win pretty much every time. Now if the longer guy is hitting it 270-280 then yeah but only 20 yards difference will not help him unless hes accurate.

Have you read this thread?

220 and 240 yard drives would be in the 80 or 90 shooting golfer range.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/18#post_1075992

Those 20 yards are worth more than a degree of accuracy gained to those golfers (despite, as was discussed at length, being a smaller improvement).

[turtleback]

I tell you what.Ill take the guy who hits it 220 and is more accurate and you take the guy hitting it 240 and not as accurate and my guy will win pretty much every time.Now if the longer guy is hitting it 270-280 then yeah but only 20 yards difference will not help him unless hes accurate.

But that is not the scenario.  You do not know how accurate the  longer guy is and you do not now how long the accurate guy is.  That is the point.

And I disagree, in any case, that your more accurate shorter guy is going to be the winner in your own scenario.  20 yards per hole is a huge distance advantage, hole after hole - way more than you think. That 20 yards will drop a pro 75+ places on the driving distance list.

And, finally, if I told you nothing else other than that one guy averaged 220 and the other averaged 240 there is at least a 50-50 chance, IMO, that the 240 guy is the more accurate as well.  People hit it further because they have better swings, which also makes them more accurate.  And then they take that better swing and use it to hit their 20 yards shorter approach shot, probably using 3 clubs less than the short guy.

[Yukari]

You're disagreeing with a straw man, as nobody is saying that. Your example is two guys who were pretty much achieving their max distance. If you could somehow magically make them more accurate but keep their 180-yard drives, or give them more distance but keep their accuracy… the distance would have likely helped them more than the accuracy. That's all @Yukari was saying (I believe). That's an unusual situation, as you shouldn't really have very many 45-72-yard shots. It's not an important skill. Also, 7-8 out of 10 inside 10 feet? You'd have led the PGA Tour (or at least been in the top two or three): [URL=http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.076.2014.html]http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.076.2014.html[/URL] . Please do yourself the favor of reading the rest of the thread, @royroy858 .

You are absolutely correct, sir.

[Parker0065]

I am a firm believer in accuracy. I believe this way for the following reasons:

1. As a young boy, I played golf with two brothers who were 81 and 83 years old. Both of them were around 5'7", weighed around 160lbs. And drove the ball roughly 180 yards. Both of them shot in the middle to high 80's. Both of them focused their attention on keeping the ball in play, as well as on chipping and putting.

2. Also, as a young boy, my uncle played golf with me. He hit a banana ball on just about every shot. No kidding, his ball curved 20-30 yards on all of his long shots. Heck, he even sliced his pitching wedge. While everyone on the tee box was aiming down the middle of the fairway, Uncle Wesley was aiming 30 yards to the left of the left hand side of the fairway (he was right handed). I would say 6-7 times out of ten, he ended up in the fairway. Also, he consistently shot in the low to middle 80's.

3. Many years ago, I lowered my scores by focusing on chipping, pitching and putting (90 minutes a week). This way, when I was within 40 yards of the green, I could consistently (6-7 times out of 10) get the ball in the hole in three shots or less.

4. By slowing my swing down and focusing more on accuracy rather than distance, I kept my drives in play more often.

5. Finally, Jack Nicklaus wrote the following in one of his books:

"I would rather hit my drive 250 yards down the center of the fairway than be 270 yards in the rough."

Having written all of that, I believe the game is more enjoyable with an emphasis on accuracy, keeping the ball in play and in the short grass!

Besides, golf is a hobby. Hobbies are supposed to be fun

In My Bag:
Driver: :Cobra Amp Cell Pro 9.5*, Stock X-Flex

3 Wood: :Cobra Bio Cell 16*, Stock X-Flex

5 Wood: Cobra Bio Cell 20*, Stock S-Flex
Irons: Bridgestone J40-CB 3-PW, Project-X 6.0

Gap Wedge::Vokey: 52* CNC  

Sand Wedge: :Vokey: 58* CNC  

Putters: Scotty Cameron Newport II 

Ball: Bridgestone 330-S(2014)

[natureboy]

If you tell me there are two players and the only thing you know about them is that one averages 240 and the other averages 220 I'd say that it is at least 60-40 that the longer guy is the better golfer.

Now if you tell me that there are two players and the only thing you know about them is that  one is more accurate than the other (by some knowable measure that is better than just fairways hit) I'd say that tells you very little about which is better.

'Better' is kind of a relative term. I think the whole game matters as far as overall ability to score. Many people who grew up playing or have been playing for multiple years underrate the 'feel' they develop that make their short game solid (or at least average for their handicap).

I am longer and straighter with my long game for my handicap, but my short game inconsistency (putting, chipping, short pitching) costs me in 'cleaning up' so shorter drivers with tighter short games are to me 'better players' in overall game. They score lower.

[turtleback]

'Better' is kind of a relative term. I think the whole game matters as far as overall ability to score. Many people who grew up playing or have been playing for multiple years underrate the 'feel' they develop that make their short game solid (or at least average for their handicap).

I am longer and straighter with my long game for my handicap, but my short game inconsistency (putting, chipping, short pitching) costs me in 'cleaning up' so shorter drivers with tighter short games are to me 'better players' in overall game. They score lower.

Fine, but that is not the discussion.