Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs?

[InTheRough]

Obviously i am only one person so the sample size is pretty small but i have personally put the accuracy vs. distance to the test this season.   Originally I would almost always tee off with a 3W unless it was a wide open fairway  because i believed that i was more accurate with it and since i get good distance on my clubs that i would benefit more from playing in the fairway rather than whatever lie my driver would leave me.  Recently i have switched to automatically pulling driver unless there was a very good reason not to and my scores have dropped significantly(went from being a mid 90s shooter to a mid 80s shooter with the help of some swing improvements as well).  Hitting the ball further gives me a much more lofted club into the green and i've noticed that now instead of just trying to hit the green, i am trying to hit a certain spot on the green.  Just pulling driver instead of 3W has given me a much better chance of hitting a GIR which is the main ingredient for lower scores.

To the OP, if you are still reading this thread, go for your longest club that you can keep in play.

[JonMA1]

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.

If you read LSW or the thread about practice ratios, the problems with your short game as you’ve described them may be a weakness - relative to the rest of your game. And they (the authors or LSW), would likely suggest you devote a bit more time to it. If you’re getting distances close to those of your physical capabilities and keeping them straight, you would not only be the exception to someone at your handicap level, but an exception perhaps to most amateurs. In other words, this thread may not apply to you.

I had this distance vs accuracy discussion with a friend who doesn’t agree that working on distance is as important. It’s because his high school coach would get on the kids for just going to the range and having long drive competitions instead of practicing irons and working on their short games. While his coach was correct in that situation, trying to bomb your driver is not the same thing as properly working on gaining distance with a balance of your practice time dedicated to the short game.

I don’t have a problem when someone takes an opposing view to that of the majority - in fact I respect those who can think for themselves. But I think it’s important to try and understand what that opposing view is or isn’t.

What they are not saying is that accuracy doesn’t matter. Nor are they saying use a driver on every hole, or disregard all other parts of the game when practicing.

What they are saying, if I can paraphrase, is that working on maximizing distances using a proper swing will have long-term benefits. If we do this, our accuracy won’t suffer. And that a closer approach shot from the light rough is often more desirable than a further shot from the fairway.

The O.P. asked: “Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs”? If “that important” means realizing a certain level of potential, then to me the answer is yes.

I’m pretty sure that if I’d kept the same poor swing I had a year ago - didn’t change a thing - I would eventually be able to break 90 on a very short course simply by the virtue of repeating that poor swing year after year. But that swing wouldn’t have gotten me much lower than that. And on a longer course, no way. I also believe that by forcing myself to take more full swings with the driver instead of laying up, I've gotten a bit better using that club.

And one last point... whenever I hear about an older player hitting drives 180 yards down the middle of the fairway and scoring in the 80’s, I wonder how much shorter he’d be had he not learned how to hit with distance as a younger man.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="turtleback" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/612#post_1085093"]   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. [/QUOTE] 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.

Actually, a 240 hitter by definition is more accurate than the 220 hitter. If you average 240 off the tee, then you're not hitting that many trees and such. One of the few exception is a wild long drive person who can hit enough 400 yard drives to offset the 50 yard "bounced back" drives. Any realistic scenario where someone averages 240 yards is better than someone who averages 220.

[iacas]

Actually, a 240 hitter by definition is more accurate than the 220 hitter. If you average 240 off the tee, then you're not hitting that many trees and such. One of the few exception is a wild long drive person who can hit enough 400 yard drives to offset the 50 yard "bounced back" drives. Any realistic scenario where someone averages 240 yards is better than someone who averages 220.

What if the 240 hitter is a 280 hitter that hits trees and so his average is only 240?

He's not more accurate "by definition" @Lihu .

[royroy858]

parker0065,

You wrote, " If you have found a happy place in your game with short accurate drives and a decent short game then that is awesome but it is not the correct formula in maximizing ones scoring ability."

By using the mindset of accuracy over distance, I've not only found the game to be more enjoyable, but I've also lowered my scores from the low 80's to the low 70's. So, please tell me how focusing on accuracy instead of distance is not the correct formula for maximizing ones scoring ability .

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Lihu" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/630#post_1085265"] Actually, a 240 hitter by definition is more accurate than the 220 hitter. If you average 240 off the tee, then you're not hitting that many trees and such. One of the few exception is a wild long drive person who can hit enough 400 yard drives to offset the 50 yard "bounced back" drives. Any realistic scenario where someone averages 240 yards is better than someone who averages 220.[/QUOTE] What if the 240 hitter is a 280 hitter that hits trees and so his average is only 240? He's not more accurate "by definition" @Lihu .

That's something I was thinking about, I still concluded that 280 hitter would likely do better than the shorter hitter, given similar short games I suppose. Obviously, I lack the data and experience to say "by definition". Maybe, "In my limited experience this is what I've observed"?

[natureboy]

If you read LSW or the thread about practice ratios, the problems with your short game as you’ve described them may be a weakness - relative to the rest of your game. And they (the authors or LSW), would likely suggest you devote a bit more time to it. If you’re getting distances close to those of your physical capabilities and keeping them straight, you would not only be the exception to someone at your handicap level, but an exception perhaps to most amateurs. In other words, this thread may not apply to you.

I had this distance vs accuracy discussion with a friend who doesn’t agree that working on distance is as important. It’s because his high school coach would get on the kids for just going to the range and having long drive competitions instead of practicing irons and working on their short games. While his coach was correct in that situation, trying to bomb your driver is not the same thing as properly working on gaining distance with a balance of your practice time dedicated to the short game.

I don’t have a problem when someone takes an opposing view to that of the majority - in fact I respect those who can think for themselves. But I think it’s important to try and understand what that opposing view is or isn’t.

What they are not saying is that accuracy doesn’t matter. Nor are they saying use a driver on every hole, or disregard all other parts of the game when practicing.

What they are saying, if I can paraphrase, is that working on maximizing distances using a proper swing will have long-term benefits. If we do this, our accuracy won’t suffer. And that a closer approach shot from the light rough is often more desirable than a further shot from the fairway.

The O.P. asked: “Is Distance Really That Important for Amateurs”? If “that important” means realizing a certain level of potential, then to me the answer is yes.

I’m pretty sure that if I’d kept the same poor swing I had a year ago - didn’t change a thing - I would eventually be able to break 90 on a very short course simply by the virtue of repeating that poor swing year after year. But that swing wouldn’t have gotten me much lower than that. And on a longer course, no way. I also believe that by forcing myself to take more full swings with the driver instead of laying up, I've gotten a bit better using that club.

And one last point... whenever I hear about an older player hitting drives 180 yards down the middle of the fairway and scoring in the 80’s, I wonder how much shorter he’d be had he not learned how to hit with distance as a younger man.

Good points. And the anecdotes with the older players don't usually mention that they are probably playing from senior tees...a much shorter distance.

[DrvFrShow]

Well I know a 6 handicapper who averages 37 putts/round. The guy's short game is killing him. His long game is what got him where he is.

[Jakester23]

Well I know a 6 handicapper who averages 37 putts/round. The guy's short game is killing him. His long game is what got him where he is.

The more greens you hit in regulation the more putts you average. I've had 25 putt rounds where I shot in the low 90's and 33 putt rounds where I shot in the mid 80's. It's not unusual to have quite a few putts if you're hitting a lot of greens.

[Phil McGleno]

Putting is probably :offtopic:

[DrvFrShow]

The more greens you hit in regulation the more putts you average. I've had 25 putt rounds where I shot in the low 90's and 33 putt rounds where I shot in the mid 80's. It's not unusual to have quite a few putts if you're hitting a lot of greens.

Yeah, those chips that you drop to tap in range leave you with a 1 putt. My round of 90 this year had 29 putts. I chipped in on one of the par 4s.

The guy admits he has trouble reading greens. I found an aimpoint instructor in the area. I told him about the guy. When the weather warms up, I'll check him out myself. I have trouble reading them myself, and just treat anything over 15 feet as a lag.

Back on topic. Distance? Since I play from reds, I find it a luxury to be able to pull out the 17* and hit 210 yds. when the driver is misbehaving. I'm still within PW to 7 iron on most par 4s where I'd be SW to 8/9 iron if my driver was behaving. My problem is that i don't know enough to do that, and I pay for it with errant tee shots that require a rescue shot that wastes a stroke. So I guess you can still say that distance matters because if I couldn't hit that 17* like that I wouldn't even be breaking 100.

[boogielicious]

parker0065,

You wrote, "If you have found a happy place in your game with short accurate drives and a decent short game then that is awesome but it is not the correct formula in maximizing ones scoring ability."

By using the mindset of accuracy over distance, I've not only found the game to be more enjoyable, but I've also lowered my scores from the low 80's to the low 70's. So, please tell me how focusing on accuracy instead of distance is not the correct formula for maximizing ones scoring ability.

Please read the previous 634 posts.  You're a 0.5 HC.  You already hit it far.  For the vast majority of golfers who aren't even a single digit golfer, distance is slightly more important than accuracy.

[Valleygolfer]

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

If Jack was hitting 250 he would not have been happy...

[Ernest Jones]

[quote name="royroy858" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/600_20#post_1085015"] "I would rather hit my drive 250 yards down the center of the fairway than be 270 yards in the rough."

If Jack was hitting 250 he would not have been happy...[/quote] And Tiger would be the GOAT. :whistle:

[saevel25]

If Jack was hitting 250 he would not have been happy...

Also notice the number of times he looks like he is absolutely lashing at the ball with his driver. He knew his distance was a huge advantage.

[billchao]

What if the 240 hitter is a 280 hitter that hits trees and so his average is only 240? He's not more accurate "by definition" @Lihu .

I might know a guy like that.

[14ledo81]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

What if the 240 hitter is a 280 hitter that hits trees and so his average is only 240?

He's not more accurate "by definition" @Lihu

.

I might know a guy like that.

Hmmm... Still sounds like that guy would have more potential than the guy that I know.  The one that reaches 240 on a very solid hit once a round......

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="billchao" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/630#post_1085370"]   [QUOTE name="iacas" url="/t/78188/is-distance-really-that-important-for-amateurs/630#post_1085266"] What if the 240 hitter is a 280 hitter that hits trees and so his average is only 240? He's not more accurate "by definition" @Lihu .[/QUOTE] I might know a guy like that.[/QUOTE] Hmmm... Still sounds like that guy would have more potential than the guy that I know.  The one that reaches 240 on a very solid hit once a round......

Yeah, the wild 280 hitter will always have more potential, in this case. ;-)